2001-09-25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN
CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY
ROBERT VOLLARO
JOHN STROUGH
CHRIS HUNSINGER
LARRY RINGER
MEMBERS ABSENT
ANTHONY METIVIER
PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED MODIFICATION HELEN
MITCHELL PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE:
SPLIT ZONED, LC-10A AND RR-5A LOCATION: LOCKHART MOUNTAIN ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SUBDIVISION. THE
APPLICANT PROPOSES COMBINING LOTS ONE AND TWO OF THE ORIGINAL
SUBDIVISION. THIS WILL REDUCE THE NUMBER OF LOTS FROM 12 TO 11. TAX
MAP NO. 23-1-13, 40, 41 LOT SIZE: 2.75 AC., 79.84 AC., AND 50.65 SECTION:
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 1-2001, Modification, Helen Mitchell, Meeting Date: September
25, 2001 “Project Description
The applicant proposes to modify a Planning Board approved subdivision. The original subdivision
was for 12 residential lots; the applicant now proposes 11 lots combining lots 1 and 2 of the
approved subdivision. The applicant has submitted a request for an APA jurisdiction determination.
The Zoning Administrator informed the applicant that the Stormwater Management Plans for the
original plan were not adequate for a Zoning Administrator’s sign-off.
The applicant has submitted a revised plan showing the reduction of lots and a stormwater plan that
is being reviewed by the Zoning Administrator and CT Male.
Study of plat (§ A183)
Lot arrangement: The arrangement of lots is similar to the original proposal, changing lot sizes.
Sewage disposal and Water supply: The plans indicate proposed on site septic systems and well locations.
Drainage: The applicant has submitted a stormwater management plan.
Lot sizes: The Planning Board had conditioned the original resolution that lot 11 now lot 10 be noted of an increase
in size from 7.49 acres to 33.18 acres –the size increase is actually 36.14 acres.
Future development: The Planning Board conditioned the Final subdivision that Lot #3 and Lot #11 (now lot
#10) with no further subdivision.
State Environmental Quality Review Act: Determination of significance. The Board needs to consider if the
reduction of lots is significant enough for additional SEQR review.
Adirondack Park Agency: The applicant has indicated that they have contacted the APA. The applicant has
received a non-jurisdictional letter.
Areas of Concern or Importance
The plat should be revised with the following notes:
The note on the plat should be revised to indicate Lot # 2 (previously lot 3) and Lot 10 (previously
lot 11) should indicate no further subdivision allowed.
1
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
All construction of the subdivision will submit a clearing plan as part of the building permit
application
Restrictions on plat are also noted in the deeds”
MRS. MOORE-And another note is they received an APA Non-jurisdictional review, and a C.T.
Male signoff.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and the reason, actually, that they’re back here for the modification is the
decrease in lots and the stormwater management plan. Correct?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Tom Nace, and Matt Steves. Very
simply, we’re here to reduce the number of lots from 12 to 11. The lot that was proposed along 9L,
next to Mrs. Mitchell’s existing house and barn and outbuildings, has been eliminated, so that the lot
will go from roughly five acres to ten acres. That is the only physical change on the subdivision that
we’re asking you to approve. In terms of the stormwater, the concept of the stormwater has not
changed whatsoever, in terms of dealing with the stormwater on each site. Tom just did a more
detailed plan in response to Chris Round’s letter, which justifies the plans that were here to begin
with. I’d like Tom to just explain, for a moment, the stormwater report that he submitted, which has
now been approved, or recommended for approval, by C.T. Male.
MR. NACE-Basically, the original stormwater management report and the revised stormwater
management report, simply state that there is no new infrastructure for this subdivision, that each lot
will have to be developed, because it’s within the Lake George Basin, will have to be developed in
accordance with the rules and regulations of the Town’s stormwater management practices, and
regulations, and what we have done is add to the revised report a typical lot diagram which shows
how the total possible clearing on each lot of 1.25 acres could be handled for stormwater
management. Of course as the lots develop, each person that buys a lot is going to have their own
choice of what house, how big, how they fit it on the lot, where it goes, how it’s graded. So each
individual lot, at time of building permit, will have to have a stormwater management plan submitted
with it, which will address the specifics of how that lot is being developed.
MR. LAPPER-But the standards are set forth in Tom’s report, in terms of 100% infiltration, so that
there’ll be no more water leaving the site after development than there is before development, and
that was always the case, with the shorter report that he submitted at the time of the original
approval.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Did you want to make any comment to C.T. Male’s letter?
MR. NACE-No. We responded to it. I presume you have a copy of our response of today. For the
record, that first comment, let me get a copy of their letter in front of me, too. Their first comment
was simply a mix up in the note that said no further subdivision of Lot Number Three is to be
allowed, and it should be Lot Number Two.
MR. LAPPER-That lot changed when we eliminated one of the lots, the number on that lot changed,
same lot.
MR. NACE-They had a comment that the stormwater management report includes possible
management means of a drywell, as well as infiltration trenches, etc. Their comment was that, in
some places, the test pits showed bedrock was relatively shallow, and that drywells really wouldn’t be
applicable in those areas. So we’ve changed the text of the stormwater report to specifically state that
drywells are permissible only where the depth to bedrock or seasonal high water table permits. Their
third comment was the fact that the stormwater management report incorrectly referred to twelve
lots. It’s now been reduced to eleven lots. So that correction has been made, and they had a
comment regarding the fact that both of the plan and the stormwater report referred to 141 acres as
the total parcel size before subdivision, whereas the lots themselves, the individual sizes of the lots
themselves, only added up to 138 acres. That 141 came from the original deed which probably
included a portion of the road that transverses through the subdivision. Their fourth comment was
that they said no supporting calculations for the 25 year storm identified as design criteria for runoff
rate attenuation in the stormwater management report were there. They were there. However, I
added to the report a summary which clearly identified both results from both the 10 and 25 year
storm, and their fifth comment was that results and conclusions section of the stormwater
management report indicates a reduction in area for impervious surfaces which should be clarified.
That was poorly worded. I totally revised that section to include a clear, concise table of pre and
post development conditions, and then we received, later this afternoon, we received from C.T. Male
a letter, for the record, says, “Dear Mr. Round: We’ve received a re-submittal of information from
2
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
the applicant’s engineer, Nace Engineering, P.C., consisting of a cover letter dated September 25,
2001, and revised text from the stormwater management report. Provided that the note regarding
‘no further subdivision’ was revised on the map as indicated in the response letter, the information
contained in the re-submittal addresses all of the comments made in our September 21, 2001 letter.”
It’s signed Jim Houston.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to add?
MR. NACE-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-John, we’ll start with you.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Good evening.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening.
MR. STROUGH-I’ll go through my checklist here. One, just to refresh my memory, I think we did,
but this is a letter from Mr. Steves, dated June 28, 2001, and it is in reference to the cutting plan.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Now did we condition that and have this submitted as the plan, cutting plan?
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Has the stormwater management plan been approved by the Highway
Superintendent?
MR. NACE-I don’t know that the Highway Superintendent would have input to that. It would be
the Zoning Administrator.
MR. STROUGH-Well, it says, it just says in the Subdivision A183-27 Paragraph One, that the
stormwater management plan must be approved by the Highway Superintendent.
MR. NACE-Well, typically in your subdivision, if you’ll go back to any of the previous subdivision
stuff we’ve done, typically, your subdivision stormwater management report addresses the
infrastructure, the runoff that occurs from the infrastructure, being the subdivision roads, etc. This is
a little different. There are no roads. There is no subdivision infrastructure. This is, because we’re
in the Lake George basin, simply addressing and showing that stormwater can be handled on a
typical lot in accordance with your regulations.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, but it doesn’t say that specifically. What it does say is a storm drainage plan
must be approved by the Highway Superintendent and Planning Board, but I can see your reasoning.
I just don’t know if we need a write off by the Highway Department.
MR. MAC EWAN-No, typically this Board has never had any stormwater management plans
reviewed by the Highway Superintendent.
MR. STROUGH-I can’t remember any.
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. STROUGH-I just was reviewing this, and.
MR. MAC EWAN-What Mr. Nace is referring to is accurate, that what that section of the Ordinance
is referring to is infrastructure, catch basins, swales and stuff like that.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Okay.
MR. LAPPER-But for the record, there’s no more water leaving the site towards the existing Town
road, Lockhart Mountain Road, and that’s in Tom’s report, that C.T. Male’s reviewed.
MR. STROUGH-Right. I’ve read that. We’re talking about the stormwater management, who will
review the stormwater management details for each lot? Will a professional? Will the Planning
Board review those plans?
MR. LAPPER-The Planning Staff.
MR. STROUGH-Planning Staff would review that?
3
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
MR. LAPPER-Staff. When you submit an application for a building permit, that is an additional
requirement now, based upon our approval, that everyone will have to submit their own plan, which
has to fulfill the standards that are in Tom’s report. Tom’s is a conceptual, as he said, until we know
exactly the size and location of the house, but they will have to prove that they are complying with
Tom’s conceptual plan, infiltration, etc.
MR. STROUGH-Now, so the Planning Staff is going to review the stormwater runoff management
plan for each house as it’s submitted?
MRS. MOORE-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Next on my checklist. Lot 10 boundaries. Now I’ve got all the boundaries,
Mr. Nace. I had a problem finding Lot 10 boundary. I mean, I just don’t know where it was.
MATT STEVES
MR. STEVES-Matt Steves, for the record. The Lot 10 boundary on the, I believe you’re probably
talking about where it borders the stream, the center of the thread of the stream is the boundary in
that instance.
MR. STROUGH-Do you see what I’m saying? You see the boundary to Lot 11. I’ve got the
boundary to Lot Nine, and then I started to do Lot Ten.
MR. STEVES-It comes here, here, there’s your bearing distance, and then along the stream it says
336 feet, plus or minus along the stream, and back this was and around back and around.
MR. STROUGH-So it goes up, down and around and then over.
MR. STEVES-Right.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-John, the effect of that is that the entire wetland is on that one lot. So that it’s not a
subdivision.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I see where the stream line and the boundary line, just wasn’t clear, and
that’s cleared up. Thank you, and also, as C.T. Male, we are going to add no further subdivision of
this lot to be allowed on Lot 10?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. The restrictions on the plat will also be noted in the deeds.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay, and Craig Brown keeps referring to Chapter 147. Chapter 147 to what?
MR. LAPPER-That’s the Town Code, Stormwater Management.
MR. STROUGH-Is that the Town Code? I didn’t have a copy of that. Is that the same as our
subdivision?
MR. LAPPER-It’s not.
MR. NACE-It’s part of the overall Code.
MR. STROUGH-So I didn’t have a chance to review that to see, because I didn’t have a 147. I was
never given that.
MR. LAPPER-That is what the Zoning Administrator reviews. That is the stormwater management
report, subject, when you’re in the Lake George Park Commission jurisdiction, the Town administers
the Lake George Park Commission regulations, and that’s what Tom submitted to C.T. Male, which,
again, didn’t change the plans, but it just proved that his original plans complied, and C.T. Male has
now signed off.
MR. STROUGH-When Craig refers to 147, and I go through my materials, and I can’t find a 147,
just to correlate it, okay, that explains it. All right. Now I have questions about Lots 9 and 10, and
4
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
this might be more aptly directed to Laura. Now Lots 9 and 11 go into the Land Conservation 10
acre zone?
MRS. MOORE-Where it’s split zoned? Yes.
MR. STROUGH-And Lot 11 is less than 10 acres and Lot 9 is less than 10 acres. Is that
permissible?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Now I see the test pits indicate bedrock sometimes less than four
feet. Now that means that the, I was a little bit concerned. How are they going to put basements in
below the frost line if bedrock’s above it? Are they going to build them right on the bedrock?
MR. NACE-Typically, when you’re to bedrock, you are, you know, below frost line.
MR. STROUGH-You’re there. You’re not going to move. You’re not going anywhere.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-John, in terms of the density, it should just be pointed out, when you’re talking about
the LC-10 and the LC-5, that this is certainly not a, this is not maxing it out, in terms of the
maximum number of building lots you could have on this much land.
MR. STROUGH-I understand, Jon, thanks. How about the water lines? What if the water lines
can’t get in because bedrock is less than four foot? Would that present a problem?
MR. NACE-These are all individual wells.
MR. STROUGH-So these would be wells, but going from the well to the house.
MR. NACE-They’d find a way of covering it or insulating it.
MR. STROUGH-Insulating it? Yes, okay.
MR. NACE-It’s not an unusual circumstance.
MR. STROUGH-All right. Now, when you did, Mr. Nace, the typical lot layout, your stormwater
management plan, I couldn’t tell if that’s going to work myself, because there weren’t any contour
lines on it. I don’t know if the driveway was going down toward the road or pitching toward the
house.
MR. NACE-Well, again it’s a concept, and each individual one will have to show the actual contours
and proposed contours, when the house or the lot’s developed.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So just get that clarified, that when they do do a lot layout, they will have
the contour lines on, of course.
MR. NACE-They will have to, yes.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, and just one more question. Now, in your typical lot layout, are those like
retention and detention basins lateral to the driveway, for example?
MR. NACE-Okay, along the side of the driveway, they’re infiltration trenches, which is nothing other
than a French drain, a rock filled French drain or trench. What are shown for the roof leaders for
the house drainage are stormwater infiltrators, which are underground chambers, infiltrator is a brand
name or a generic, it’s also used as a generic name.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. So I was just, when I was going through Subdivision rules, A183-27B, it
required a 50 year storm event for retention and detention basins, but this is an infiltration basin.
MR. NACE-Correct.
MR. STROUGH-So the 25 year would apply.
MR. NACE-Yes. The design criteria is right out of whatever chapter and verse Craig quoted, being
the same as the Lake George basin or Lake George Park Commission regulations.
5
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
MR. STROUGH-That’s the bottom of my checklist for now. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I thought the revised stormwater management report was really helpful,
especially the example. I wanted to go back to, Tom, your letter dated September 25, regarding the
th
drywells, where you hit bedrock, and take that back to the example here. So if you were going to put
one of these stormwater infiltrators in in a certain location, and you hit bedrock, you would just
move it somewhere else, and extend the pipe or (lost words) right?
MR. NACE-Well, actually, what is shown on the example, the trenches and the infiltrators, are
shallow infiltration devices, and they can be used with a couple of feet, three, four feet of usable soil.
Drywells, typical drywell is three, four feet deep, it’s cover plus an inlet grate. So, with a drywell, you
really need five or six feet of usable soil.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. NACE-So, what the original question from C.T. Male was is that, in the text of the stormwater
report, it referred to drywells as being an acceptable method.
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. NACE-And, you know, they wanted to just clarify that, acceptable only when there’s adequate
soil.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I see. Going back to these stormwater infiltrators, how likely are they to
plug up with, you know, leaves and pine needles and things like that? I mean, I know the gutters on
my house, if I don’t clean them out, a couple of times a year, you know, the downspout is plugged
up, and you might as well not even have them.
MR. NACE-Well, as you said, the plugging up will normally come in the downspout, or where the
gutter leads into the downspout. Once you get down the pipe to the infiltrators, it’s a larger pipe,
and it’s a bigger area. It’s not likely to flood up.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. NACE-They’re commonly used.
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have anything else.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m okay right now. I think that, just the comment that I have to make is that
it is a very, very large piece of land, and it doesn’t seem like 11 potential homes are going to make any
impact, and, obviously they’re going to make some of an impact, and I’m just hoping that all the
agencies that have worked together on this have uncovered all the, turned over all the stones and
have addressed all the issues. I think that you’ve done a pretty good job of care, but it seems like it’s
going to work.
MR. LAPPER-Well, the modification, of course, that’s on for tonight, doesn’t affect the density,
other than to make it better by having one few house, but.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I understand that, but I think that, Jon, there were still questions in people’s
minds after it was passed.
MR. LAPPER-Well, I think that there are some neighbors who unfortunately would like it never to
be developed, and I have corresponded with their attorney that Mrs. Mitchell would be more than
happy to accept an offer for purchasing the entire site or parts of the site, to be dedicated for
conservation use, if the neighbors want to purchase it, that that would be something that she would
be very happy to entertain, and I’ve passed that along to the attorney for some of the neighbors, and
I haven’t heard a response from him. It’s been about 60 days since I sent that letter, but in terms of
the overall design, because the Board was so careful to scrutinize it and to limit development to 1.5
acres, and because Mrs. Mitchell was not trying to maximize the price and cut down lots of trees so
that people would have these phenomenal views, which they won’t have in 1.25 acres, we think that
the Board did a very thorough job, and that there’s not going to be an impact of the subdivision
because, with 138 acres, and 11 lots, it’s not dense.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I want to believe that, and I think it’s going to be okay.
6
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just want to take up on where my two colleagues on the end talked about
drywells and infiltrators. They will need maintenance. They will need to be cleaned. In order to
guarantee that all of the runoff stays on that site, they’d have to be functioning well.
MR. NACE-Any device would have to be maintained.
MR. VOLLARO-So I think Chris touched on that, but I just wanted to say something further. I’d
like to refer to the Adirondack Park Agency report dated, I guess, September 19, on Page Five, or
th
Page Four or Five, I guess it is. Last paragraph down, where it talks about, your project may require
approval from other government entities, and you must contact the Town of Queensbury and we
recommend that you check with other State agencies, especially the Department of Environmental
Conservation and the Department of Health. I’m just wondering, are any of those contacts
necessary in getting approvals for this property? I know there’s some citizens out here that are
concerned with things like runoff and I think DOH and DEC would be the more appropriate
agencies to talk about that sort of thing.
MR. LAPPER-Well, DEC would be the case if there was going to be a wetland buffer infraction,
which that lot is a huge lot that has the wetland, 30 some odd, 6 acres. There would be no, really
there would be no ability, if you were going to clear an acre and a quarter, to put the house by the
wetland but there would be no reason to. The flatter, better land near the road, we didn’t anticipate.
MR. VOLLARO-We’re saying that we didn’t contact that agency, essentially. Is that correct?
MR. LAPPER-Nor would you have to, unless someone who bought a lot wanted to infringe on the
buffer of the wetland, which there would be no reason to.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now how about the Department of Health. Is there any need to check with
those folks at all on this?
MR. NACE-No. There’s nothing jurisdictional. They take jurisdiction for subdivisions, only if there
are, I believe it’s five lots of five acres or less.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s all I have.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I have nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you gentlemen wanted to add?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments from Board members? I’ll ask you to give up
the table for a couple of minutes. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment
on this application? You’re welcome to come up. I’d just ask any questions you have, direct them to
the Board, please, and identify yourself for the record.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
DR. CAROL COLLINS
DR. COLLINS-Good evening. My name is Dr. Carol Collins. I reside at 35 Knox Road, Assembly
Point, Lake George, NY. I have been a summer and full time resident in the Town of Queensbury
for this part of my entire life. I am also a limnologist who has been investigating the water quality of
Lake George since 1976. I have privately served as Science Advisor for the Lake George
Association. I am currently Vice Chair of the fund for Lake George. As principal investigator for
the National Science Foundation, I have investigated evaluating management techniques for Lake
George. I’m currently co-chair of the Water Quality Subcommittee for the Lake George Conference,
in which our Town Supervisor, Dennis Brower, and a co-signator of the memorandum of
understanding. I would like to say that our committee has paid particular attention to the fact that
we need to have a more comprehensive project review, and are initiating that process to make sure
that projects are reviewed by more agencies and information is passed along accordingly. This is the
first opportunity I have had to speak to you concerning the Helen Mitchell subdivision. I was not
permitted to speak at a previous hearing on the issue, and I will speak to you regarding the
7
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
modifications of the projects, and I understand that I can only speak on the modification. Is that
correct, or is it for everything?
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we’re here for the modification tonight. The previous portion of it has
already been approved.
DR. COLLINS-Okay. Well, I’m willing to keep my comments to that modification. The
modification of the project from 11 lots to 10 lots is an indisputable effort to eliminate the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Adirondack Park Agency from
jurisdiction through the process of gerrymandering. That is to say the lots were redrawn to eliminate
the wetlands from the property and to hence eliminate oversight from these agencies. Bravo to the
attorneys for using a very conspicuous loophole and condolences to our Lake and our Nation who
will suffer the spoils of the indifferent development and lack of oversight by these State agencies.
The Town of Queensbury issued a negative dec on the original project that was so flawed even the
applicant sought to revise it. It goes without question that you will probably do the same tonight.
However, in light of the modifications and public pressure, perhaps we can persuade you that it is in
the Town’s best interest to require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement on this
project, which I will argue is a Type I project. Let me begin with stormwater. This project, without
question, should be considered a major project. In the prior plan, no stormwater plan was
submitted, and this was considered acceptable to the Town. A stormwater plan has been submitted
with modifications. However, the Soil and Water Conservation District who often reviews plans of
this size for the Town has not been requested to review the plan. Dave Wicks has indicated he
would be happy to do so. It is also clear to me that the plan is deficient in many respects. Since this
is one of the first go arounds for the Town for this stormwater plan, as adopted from the Lake
George Park Commission, it would also be wise to have the Lake George Park Commission
participate in this initial review for stormwater plans for the Town of Queensbury. According to
Code, Town Code, Section 147-7 for major stormwater plans, the cumulative impact of all projects
under review should be considered. The stormwater impact of the Top of the World project must
be considered and reviewed together with this project in their entirety. Two, Section 147-9, for
development greater than five acres, stormwater control measures shall function to attenuate peak
runoff for flows for 100 year storms to be equal or less than pre-development flow rates. For
development greater than five acres, coverage is required under a SPDES general stormwater permit
administered by DEC. DEC has not received a permit application. Third, control measures shall
include other measures that would prevent water quality degradation of Lake George or adversely
effect aquatic life. This is also Section 147.9. A stream already impacted by the Top of the World
that drains the site and the road serving this site is significantly impacted by erosion and sanding
operations that dump significant amounts of sediment into the lake. Nutrient loading is likely to be
significant as well and needs to be quantified. This watershed is adjacent to a region of the lake that
is experiencing severe oxygen depletion during overturn and may be contributing to this problem,
and this site may be contributing to this problem. Dissolve oxygen levels go below four milligrams
per liter and cannot support fish and other aquatic life during this time period. Further impact by
improper project review and development is certain to exacerbate this problem. For these reasons,
no stormwater management permit should be issued unless the Town makes the following findings,
which shall be supported by substantial evidence according to Section 147-13. The findings include,
one, the stormwater plan must meet design requirements and performance standards set forth in this
Chapter. Two, the project will not have an undue adverse impact on resources of the lake and will
not lead to a diminution of water quality, increase in erosion or increase in stormwater runoff.
Three, the project will not contribute to siltation or erosion and will not result in any increase,
directly or indirectly, in the pollution to Lake George and tributaries from the runoff. These were
not covered in the stormwater runoff plan. Visual impacts. Within view of the Mitchell property
and its adjacent hillsides, where development is proposed, are several historic sites of note. All these
sites are threatened from this development, since the landscape and view shed will be significantly
altered. According to Joe Szarzinksy, underwater archeologist, Executive Director of Botobolo, the
following sites are threatened. I will give you the reason for these citations in a moment. First, 1758
land tortoise, raddo shipwreck. A 52 foot long, seven sided floating gun battery known as North
America’s oldest intact warship, lies 700 yards northeast of Tea Island in 100 feet of water.
Discovered in 1990, it became part of Lake George’s submerged heritage preserved in 1994, one year
after the underwater park opened. This DEC administered park submerged heritage preserve was
the first shipwreck park in the Empire State. The Raddo was listed on the national register of
historic places in 1995, and listed as a national historic landmark in 1998. It is only the sixth
shipwreck designated as a national historic landmark. It joins the Arizona, the Utah, the Monitor, the
Maple Leaf. Two, the Owl’s Nest, Edward Eggleston’s estate on Joshua’s Rock, lies in its view shed.
This 10 acre estate owned by novelist Edward Eggleston, is listed in the national historic landmark in
1971. This is the highest register you can get in our national preserves. His grandson, or great-
grandson, happens to be in the audience tonight. Number Three, the Wiawaka Holiday House,
located at the foot of the Top of the World hill and surrounding environs, located on the east side of
Lake George listed in the National Registry in the late 1990’s. Wiawaka Bateau, listed in 1992 in the
National Register of Historic Places. The forward underground classroom, along with the Raddo
preserve is the third member of the underwater State park, opened in 1993. It lies east/southeast of
8
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
Diamond Island, and within eye sight of the proposed development. The 45 foot long (lost word)
was originally owned by the Bixby family. In the Diamond Island, scene of the only naval land battle
in 1777’s Burgoyne campaign, when German and British were stationed on the Island, fought in an
artillery battle with the American fleet lead by Colonel Brown. This battle field is current being
examined by the National Parks Service for site protection. It is directly within view of the site.
Next year marks the 225 anniversary of the battle. This is being inventoried for inclusion today.
th
Site of the Fort William Henry Motel, you’re all pretty familiar with, and finally, the waters along the
east side of Lake George and the south basin are the location of several dozen Bateau warships. In
addition to these sites, the Veterans Highway is part of the State Scenic Parkway and is within the
view shed. To conclude, any shore side development on the east shore ridge, high above the south
basin, will impact the aesthetics of not only the natural beauty of the lake, but the historic sites as
well. According to SEQRA, this project should be considered a Type I Action, because any Unlisted
Action substantially contiguous to any historic building, structure, facility, site or district or
prehistoric site that lies on the National Register of Historic Places or proposed for the State Historic
Places, listed under 617 of SEQRA, should be considered. The visual impact of this proposed
subdivision on our national historic landmarks National Register of Historic Places and State Parks is
overwhelming, especially considering the 1.2 acres of clear cut per lot, and lack of any significant
enforcement procedures. In conclusion, I urge my Town to recognize this as a Type I project, and
initiate a proper environmental assessment form or EIS. I would also request the Town to work
with other State agencies who have not yet been involved in reviewing this project, including the
Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation who are very interested, the Adirondack Park
Agency, and the Lake George Park Commission, so that this project receives the proper review. I
had one other comment. Maybe it’ll come to me. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
LIONEL BARTHOLD
MR. BARTHOLD-Thank you. My name is Lionel Barthold. I’m a registered professional engineer
in the State of New York, and I live on Lake George at Woods Point Lane, just below Lockhart
Mountain Road. My neighbors and I have been very seriously concerned over this development
since it was first called to our attention last July. The project was approved by your Board, despite,
one, evidence that APA had jurisdiction, two, information that DEC suspected the land was host to
endangered species, three, the absence of any stormwater plan, and, four, the absence of even the
most elementary visual impact study. The applicant has since redefined the boundaries to prescribe
the wetland, and has prepared a stormwater plan. They have not addressed the visual impact at all,
and I think when it comes down to it, that’s probably the most serious concern to Lake George
residents. In the July hearing, I expressed my fear that the upland development on Lake George, if
not carefully managed, will change the entire character of the lake, as it has to so many similar lakes
in Europe. The character of our lake is fundamental to property values, and when you come down
to it, the basis for Lake George’s economy. It’s attraction as a tourist center. I’d like to illustrate
with three photos, which I have copies of and I’ll distribute to you if I may. The three homes I
photographed this afternoon are just off Lockhart Road, on the mountainside that we’re talking
about. The impact, by the way, would have been more dramatic from the lake, but as you know, it
was raining today, and you couldn’t even see the shore at the time I had to take these pictures. The
first of the houses, which is Number One on that series, was built about the turn of the century. It
could hardly be seen from the lake when I moved here about 25 years ago. Fifteen years ago, the
new owner clear cut several acres downhill from the house, and it’s now extremely conspicuous.
Was that clearing legal? What does it matter. That deed is done. The second house, Number Two,
was built about 10 years ago, if my memory serves me. From the beginning it stood out enough to
serve as a navigation reference point on the lake, on that shore. It was the only outstanding point.
It’s height, color, and the extensive clearing around it made it visible all the way to Bolton Landing.
Was that clearing legal? Again, it doesn’t really matter now. The third house has just been built,
uphill from the other two. It’s higher than either of the other two, and it’s also a light color and is
extremely visible from the lake. I don’t know how much land is cleared around this house, but I
suspect that the acre and a quarter that’s allowed under the Mitchell plan would have been more than
adequate to clear for that third house and the second, and impose the same severe visible impact on
Lake George uplands. It is possible to build a large house in the woods with construction and
landscaping that allow a view of the lake without being conspicuous from it. I know because I built
one and I live in one. My appeal to the Town Board is as follows. Number One, an acre and a
quarter clearing restriction does not, by itself, assure low visual impart. In light of what’s happened
lower on the mountainside, with just three houses, the residents of this Town who live on the lake
deserve at least a reasonable visual impact study of the new houses proposed. Second, the relevance
and even the viability of both the visual impact study and a stormwater plan depend on how much
land has been cleared. The Town has not been able to prevent excessive clearing in the past.
Witness these photos. Its Lake George residents deserve a better system of monitoring and a much
stronger means of enforcing clearing restrictions to ensure that we don’t have 10 more impacts like
those I have illustrated. I don’t believe that any upland housing developments should be approved
before those measures are in place. Finally, let me make one point. At the first hearing for this
9
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
project, John Matthews and some other people suggested that Mrs. Mitchell, who is obviously
concerned about keeping this land in its natural state, talk to the Nature Conservancy about an
outright sale of the land or the sale of a scenic easement on it. Out of curiosity, I phoned the
Conservancy today and asked if they had been approached, or made an approach, to Mrs. Mitchell. I
was told that the Conservancy’s Executive Director had phoned Mr. McIntyre at least a dozen times
since the early hearings, but that none of her phone calls were returned. I wonder if her Counsel has
made Mrs. Mitchell aware of that interest on the Conservancy’s part. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Barthold, could I ask you just one quick question on these three photographs
that you submitted? Do you know if each one of these properties had a clearing plan or a clearing
limitation plan when they were built?
MR. BARTHOLD-I don’t know.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
BOB HAYES
MR. HAYES-Good evening. My name is Bob Hayes. I live at 3380 Route 9L, which is about 500
feet south of the intersection of Lockhart Road and Route 9L. So in the line of fire as well. First of
all, I’d like to state for the record, publicly, that I am not opposed to the subdivision. I believe that
Mrs. Mitchell has a right to reasonable subdivision of her lands, and I do not want to appear to be an
obstructionist to that. I am not. I do have a concern that I want to bring to your attention, as a
resident of the Lake. I live in an area that’s called Plum Bay. It’s just north of Plum Point. It’s an
area that’s subject to extraordinary levels of silting. It started with the development of Top of the
World a few years ago. Probably in our Bay right now it’s someplace between six and twelve inches
of silting since that project has been built. It’s materially effected the Bay, no question about it. Not
theoretical. It’s there. Right now, in the spring, when the streams are running full boar from Top of
the World, you can see a mud plume in our Bay. It’s that bad. It’s that serious. I want to make sure
that this project is reviewed carefully, to make certain that under no circumstances will we have a
similar additional plume in our Bay. It’s destroying it, right before our eyes, and you’re the only folks
that we can look to to protect our resource. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
HEATHER SHOUDY BRECHTKO
MRS. SHOUDY BRECHTKO-Good evening. My name is Heather Shoudy Brechtko. I’m with the
Lake George Association. We have commented extensively on this project, both back in July and in
the form of a letter before that public hearing. We are pleased to see some stormwater plans, and
there is more detail that’s provided than before, including the pre and post development calculations.
However, it wouldn’t hurt to have the Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District look at
this as well, just to have another set of eyes look at it as well as making sure that all the Sections of
147 for Major Projects are met and adhered to. There is another issue that a few of the other people
here tonight have touched upon, that the Lake George Association would like to comment on once
again. That we would like to see the visual impacts of this project revisited. 1.25 acres does not
seem like a lot of land when you talk about five to thirty-five acre lots. However, depending on the
orientation and where someone decides to put their house, and the materials that they use, could
have a significant visual impact. Many members that we’ve talked to about this project believe that
this issue needs further examination and resolution, and the issue is not whether this person has a
right to subdivide their land. However, it doesn’t, it means that the subdivision should be required to
have filtered views. It’s not that these people don’t have the right to have a view, many of the people
along the lakeshores do, but it needs to be filtered, to protect the aesthetic hillside resources of the
Town, and there’s other ways that this could be done, in terms of some other towns in the basin that
have looked at this. I know that, in Bolton, they do only allow I think 10 to 20 feet around the
structure to be cleared, and I would talk about, I would recommend that anything beyond that come
back here for site plan review for a cutting plan, in order to promote those filtered views, and I
would also argue, the Lake George Association would argue, that some of the issues that were raised
by Mr. Strough, and the level of interest in this project, may justify that each house go through site
plan review. There’s shallow depth to bedrock in some areas. There’s water line issues. The visual
impacts and stormwater, and I think that’s the Town’s best insurance policy in terms of making sure
that the Planning Board, who is responsible for the overall development of the Town, has the
opportunity to look at all these issues. Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else?
TOM WEST
10
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
MR. WEST-Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Board. My name is Tom
West. I’ve got several residents of the Town of Queensbury. One is on Assembly Point on Knox
Road. Our Assembly Point property looks directly at Lockhart Mountain. So we have a direct view
of the proposed project. The other property that I own is in Dunham’s Bay. It’s part of the Joshua’s
Rock Corporation. I’m a shareholder in that Corporation. Our family has owned property on Lake
George for 200 years or more. I’d like to speak to you tonight about a couple of legal issues,
procedural issues, and also try and put this visual impact issue in perspective. I think, like Mr. Hayes,
I’m not here to oppose Mrs. Mitchell coming in for a reasonable subdivision of her land. I think any
effort by the applicant’s attorney to say that the neighbors are opposed to development at all cost is
totally untrue. What we’re looking for as neighbors, and the reason we commenced litigation against
the Town, over the original approval, is because we want the Town, and this applicant, to follow the
requirements of law in evaluating the various impacts that will occur as a result of this project, and
that’s all we’re asking for. We’re asking that you apply the requirements of the State Environmental
Quality Review Act to this project. The way that law is intended to be applied, that you take a hard
look at the issues, where there are potentially significant impacts, whether they be aesthetic impacts
or stormwater impacts or endangered species impacts, that those impacts be mitigated to the
maximum extent practicable. I’ve been speaking before boards in the Town of Queensbury since
long before I had a license to practice law. It started out when I was in college dealing with some
projects in Dunham’s Bay. I’ve been before boards in the Lake George area for many, many years,
and I find it somewhat sad that I have to come before this Board to repeat a theme that I used to
repeat in the early 80’s, talking about the purposes of SEQRA. SEQRA is a tool. It’s not a weapon.
It’s an opportunity for your Board to require facts and figures, and specific information, so that you
can do your job to make sure that this project is fair for the applicant, and does not adversely impact
the resources around the project area. Let me talk about a procedural issue. Dr. Collins mentioned
that it was her understanding that she’s only allowed to speak to the modification tonight, and I
would say that that’s absolutely not true. The original approval granted by this Board was legally
defective in a number of ways. It was legally defective because of the failure to comply with
SEQRA. It was legally defective because there were other agencies that had jurisdiction that hadn’t
been consulted in accordance with the requirements of SEQRA, and the best evidence of the failure
of the Board in its initial review of this project is that the applicant came back before this Board after
we sued the Town, and the applicant, and chose to amend its modification to try and avoid APA
jurisdiction, and they were clever in their purpose, and they were successful in their purpose, and
they were able to convince the APA that by gerrymandering lot lines that there is no long APA
jurisdiction, and what does that mean? Mrs. LaBombard, you made the comment that you hoped the
other agencies do their jobs. There is no other agency that’s going to look at this project after
tonight. This Board has the responsibility, and it has the authority, under its subdivision ordinance,
as well as the State Environmental Quality Review Act, to protect Lake George, and I submit to you
that that is your legal responsibility, that you have to fulfill. I also submit to you that this is not a
situation where just because you approved it before and you only have a modification now, you can’t
rethink your original SEQRA determination and revisit that. The case law in this State is abundantly
clear, that at anytime in the review process, including reviewing modification applications, a board
can revisit its original SEQRA determination, reverse that determination, and act in accordance with
the requirements of SEQRA. Let me now take a minute to talk about what is, to me, the most
significant issue, which is the potential aesthetic or visual impacts from this project. Mr. Barthold did
an excellent job of photographing three houses which exist on Lockhart Mountain today, which are
eyesores from Lake George. There’s no doubt that the owners of those properties enjoy
magnificent, panoramic views of Lake George, and I think everybody comes to Lake George because
it is a beautiful place, at least it is for the time being, but it is the responsibility of this Board to make
sure that if there is future development on Lockhart Mountain that it’s done in a way that is
responsible and protects Lake George. Now, what is the standard in making this determination? Is
this a situation where a couple of neighbors are saying, I don’t want to look at somebody else’s
houses, or is there something of greater significance here, and I think the obvious answer is that
there’s something of much greater significance here, and it’s Lake George itself. Time and time again
I am confused by why the boards around Lake George do not want to take the time and effort to
protect this very valuable scenic and historic resource. I’m not saying that because I’m a property
owner on Lake George, and because I don’t want other people to come in and share in that. I’m
saying that it is a scenic treasure, but you don’t have to listen to me. Look at the declaration of the
Lake George Park Commission Act itself, which declares that Lake George is a scenic resource and a
scenic and historic treasure that deserves the utmost in protection. Look at the regulations of the
Lake George Park Commission. If you look at the SEQRA Regulations of the Lake George Park
Commission, they designate the entire Lake George lake itself, as well as 500 feet around the lake as a
critical environmental area. Now, a critical environmental area is an area of special importance that
deserves protection. This regulation was adopted by the Lake George Park Commission in the late
1980’s because it was recognized that as the boards around the lake go through the process of
reviewing projects, which have the potential to impact Lake George, that they have to recognize that
there’s a heightened standard under SEQRA. Well, what does it mean if there’s a heightened
standard under SEQRA? SEQRA’s a very simple statute. It’s a very simple program. If you look at a
project, and you say it may, not that it will, but only has to potentially have significant adverse
impacts, then it’s your legal duty to say, the applicant has to do an environmental impact statement.
11
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
You have to issue a positive declaration. What are the potential impacts here? The potential impacts
with visual alone, on the scenic resources of Lake George, in and of itself, is enough to warrant the
preparation of an environmental impact statement, but then you as a Board are going to say, but wait,
we have a plan. We have a plan that limits tree cutting to one and a quarter acres for each lot, and
that should be enough. Well, I would submit that that plan is no plan at all. If you look at it, it’s one
page. It talks about a one and a quarter acre limitation. There is no enforceability given to that plan.
There’s no indication what’s going to happen in the future, long after this Board approval is issued, if
somebody decides to cut more trees. There’s some vague reference to keeping mature trees, but
when you own five or ten or fifteen or twenty acres, and you keep many mature trees, there’s still
nothing to prevent an owner from using a quarter of an acre to bring their road in, clear cutting an
acre to create a panoramic view, and what does that leave Lake George? What does that leave the
other residents of the Town of Queensbury? What does that leave the tens of thousands of people
who come to Lake George every year to take part in its scenic beauty? It leaves a cancer on the
hillside. I found it very interesting, this summer, to read the newspaper articles about the great effort
that was made to remove the house from Pilot Knob that was purchased by the Land Conservancy
and the building was physically razed, and it was big fanfare in the newspaper. Well, that lot by
comparison, that far away, that high up on Pilot Knob, is but a pimple in comparison to the
cancerous scars that will be created by 11 new lots on Lockhart Mountain without the appropriate
restrictions. Well, now you’re going to say to me, it sounds to me like you’re opposing development,
and the answer is I’m not. I’m saying that if you use SEQRA, that if you require an environmental
impact statement, and you require a landscaping plan, that has some meaning, that gets to the
concept that the Lake George Association mentioned of a filtered view, and that has some
enforceability through either specific Planning Board conditions or deed restrictions to require
perpetual maintenance of that landscaping plan, Mrs. Mitchell can be allowed to subdivide her
property. There can be homes developed on that mountainside, and they can be virtually invisible
for people who use Lake George. The owners of those lots can have a beautiful filtered view. They
may see an occasional tree in front of them, but this is a concept that works. I’ve been involved with
many, many visual impact cases. The requirements of SEQRA are that the applicant and the Board
reviewing the project must mitigate, to the maximum extent practicable. In order to comply with
that, you need a detailed plan that talks about what the density is going to be, how much of it’s going
to be filtered, how much of it’s going to be panoramic, and how it’s going to be filtered. That hasn’t
been done. Now there’s another option to this Board. I think you’ve long since past the SEQRA
threshold, and environmental impact statement should have been required for this project, but
another tool that you could use is a conditioned negative declaration. If you determine that this is an
Unlisted Action, you could require a landscaping plan from a landscape architect. There are many
landscape architects that deal with visual impact assessments, and can put together a plan that will
mitigate these very significant impacts to a historic and significant scenic resource like Lake George.
Those plans can be made part of the Planning Board conditions and they can be required to be filed
as deed restrictions, so that they perpetually bind these properties to maintain a beautiful view of
Lake George, but do so in a manner that does not adversely impact the lake. One final subject
matter I’d like to raise, under SEQRA, because it’s something that we will pursue in our litigation, is
the concept of cumulative impacts. Right now this Town is in the process of reviewing an expansion
of the Top of the World Golf project. I understand there may be additional condo development
associated with that. Another requirement of SEQRA is that you have an obligation to consider
cumulative impacts. When you have several projects like this in close proximity, it is your duty to
say, let’s stop. Let’s take a hard look at the issues. Let’s require the applicant to look at the visual
impacts that would be created by this project in relation to those, and let’s do our job to make sure
they’re mitigated to the maximum extent possible. It’s not a difficult task. It takes a little time and a
little effort by applicants, but it’s the law. So it’s okay, and that’s really what this Board should do.
Thank you very much.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone else want to speak?
MRS. MOORE-This letter is dated September 24, and is addressed to the Town Board/Planning
th
Board, and this is from Margaret Bishop Maynard and Jay William Maynard, “We are owners of a
seasonal residence on Plum Bay with 110 feet of lakeshore property, almost 100% of which is a
beach. As we are here only off and on, we were not aware of the impending development on French
Mountain. During the past few days, we have been getting the camp ready to close for the winter,
and while here learned more about the Golf Course expansion and the Mitchell property issues.
Initially, we felt that neither one directly affected us. However, just yesterday, we discovered that
three of the Mitchell properties are on the west side of Lockhart Mountain Road, and on the map
there appears to be a stream running through these lots. Between our property and Bob and Alice
Hayes’ property, there is a stream. When the Top of the World Golf condos were built, silt and
other fine clay sediments washed down this stream from French Mountain under Route 9L, and
eventually into Plum Bay. This runoff was all due to construction and landscape changes in the
French Mountain area. Consequently, the depth of the Bay changed. Noticeably especially in our
part of the Bay as it became much more shallow. This runoff continues today from natural runoff
from French Mountain and also runoff from 9L, but the major change in the Bay was due to the
construction of the Top of the World. Now more construction is pending in this area of the
12
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
Mountain. Unless all the stormwater management is judicially monitored and all of Town and State
regulations related to runoff are adhered to tightly, the consequences to Plum Bay may, again, be
significant and permanent. Unfortunately, we need to return to our home in Cape Cod, or we would
certainly attend the hearing this evening. However, we strongly urge the Planning Board to consider
all of its actions very, very carefully.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. LAPPER-First of all, most, but not all, of the speakers tonight are plaintiffs in a lawsuit against
Mrs. Mitchell, who’s here in the back row if anyone has any questions for her, and the Planning
Board. Because I’m here most months, year after year, with this Board, I know that, in comparison
to some other boards in the area, you are all very familiar with SEQRA and the SEQRA procedures.
I have reviewed with the Town Counsel the SEQRA review that took place in this case, which was a
detailed review of the Long Form, addressing the questions in Part II, and coming up with some
mitigation. I and the Town Counsel believe that that was a thorough SEQRA review, and that the
courts will uphold that. So that’s really not an issue for this Board tonight. It’s really an issue for the
Supreme Court to determine, but I feel very comfortable that the Board was more careful than other
Boards, and in terms of the acre and a quarter cutting, that that is a very severe restriction on
approximate 10 acre lots. I want to just respond to a few of the issues that were raised, and then
whatever other issues the members of the Board direct us to respond to. I was pleased, today, to get
a phone call from the Director of the Lake George Land Conservancy, Lynn LaMontaigne. There
was an article in the Post Star about a month ago where she had mentioned that they were interested
in speaking to Mrs. Mitchell about either acquiring some or all of the property for conservation
easements, and I was surprised when I saw that a month ago, because I had corresponded with the
plaintiff’s attorney and hadn’t heard anything, as I mentioned previously. She indicated that they’re
not an advocacy group, that they don’t sue people, and they’re not involved in the lawsuit, and that’s
why my letter to the attorney for the plaintiffs never got to her. She did try to reach my law partner,
Phil McIntyre, a few times. He was on vacation and they never hooked up, although Phil told me
that he did leave messages for her, but in any case, when I spoke with her today, and this is really not
directly related to the approval of one fewer lot, but as I said previously, Mrs. Mitchell would be
happy to entertain that if somebody wants to pay her to keep it vacant, what have you, that’s
something that she would consider, but I certainly don’t think that that’s necessary, because this
subdivision is not a dense subdivision. It’s per zoning. No variance is required. The Planning Board
was very careful about the restrictions, and just in general, the photographs that you saw, that we’re
talking about 15 acres of clear cutting, I believe, in one of those, and that’s what the gentleman said.
The Pilot Knob parcel, Matt tells me, was approximately 15 acres of clear cutting. These parcels that
were described as a cancer on Lake George. That is certainly not what we have here. This is a very
careful and conservative subdivision with this minor cutting restriction. If the Board is interested,
Matt can go into a detailed explanation that the area where we have proposed for houses is on slopes
that are, it’s very gentle. So in terms of the cutting, it’s only when you take down trees on steep
slopes that you have this great view, and that’s not what the case is here with the acre and a quarter.
I don’t think that that’s relevant at all to what’s before the Board tonight. It’s something that the
court may consider, but it’s not part of the reduction of the one lot, and in terms of that, even if this
had been APA jurisdictional, the only thing that the APA would have looked at on the first lot would
be that lot itself. It doesn’t make the whole subdivision jurisdictional. It’s just different, and it’s, I’m
quoting from Part 573 of the Rules and Regs, 573.3, Projects Located in Critical Environmental
Areas, it’s the first 150 feet from a State road that’s a Critical Environmental Area, and that first lot
that would have been subdivided where it’s already developed with her existing home and
outbuilding is within 150 feet because it’s along the road. A review of a land use or development or
subdivision which requires an agency permit solely because it is located, in part, in a Critical
Environmental Area, shall be confined to that portion of the land use or development actually
located within the Critical Environmental Area or, in the case of a subdivision, to those lots
proposed to be sold which are located within or have situated upon them a Critical Environmental
Area. So all we’d be talking about is that one lot anyway, which is no big deal. It just didn’t seem
necessary because she wanted to keep the lot. That’s where she lives, and she doesn’t want to
subdivide it, but it wouldn’t make the whole subdivision APA jurisdictional, and in any case, we have
the detailed APA non-jurisdiction letter. I’m not sure that there’s anything else that we need to
comment on, unless the Board asks us. Anything you want to say, Matt?
MR. RINGER-The one comment on Plum Bay and its stream, Tom. How did? Two comments on
it.
MR. NACE-I’ll let Matt talk about exactly where that is and how it relates to the topography and the
drainage around this subdivision, generally, that is more of an enforcement issue during construction,
okay, that sites need to be well silt fenced, well controlled during construction. That’s really a Code
Enforcement Issue when it comes right down to it.
13
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you have another question, Larry?
MR. RINGER-No. I was making notes, and that one.
MR. STEVES-I believe the stream that is on our property, I don’t believe, is the stream that.
MR. RINGER-Is referred to in the letter?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. RINGER-Okay.
MR. STEVES-I had the APA directly look at that stream, in two different instants, both, actually,
wetland biologists looked at that stream, Mark Brooks and the person that used to be there before
Mark. I’m trying to remember her name. It eludes me now. She now works for the Nature
Conservancy.
MR. LAPPER-We don’t have any development that would get into that stream and find its way
down to the lake, and Tom’s plan shows that all of the stormwater will be dealt with on site, on each
of these one and a quarter acre cleared sites, and there’s no development near the stream. There may
be an issue of siltation from sand on Lockhart Mountain Road. I’m sure you’re all familiar with the
steepness of that road, and the Town certainly treats that, for safety reasons, and that may wind up in
the lake, but that’s treated now and won’t be treated any different because there are going to be some
more houses.
MR. VOLLARO-I just have a couple of questions, I guess. On the major projects concerning
stormwater, for 147, I happen to sit on the Board that approved the Queensbury adoption of this
stormwater report, and I’m just wondering how much attention was paid to that in this review?
MR. NACE-Can you be a little more explicit? I went through that 147 reg, and that’s the application
that was submitted and the plan.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just want to, for the record, want to make sure that we’ve done that, and
you said we have, and that’s satisfactory for me, and the other thing I want to just go through is the
fact that the Adirondack Park Agency said that they will not require a permit, and then they go on to
say, this letter is based on the corrected facts provided by you on September 19, and then they go
th
on at the end and say, if any of the above is incorrect, and this is on Page Two of Five, please contact
the Agency as a different determination could result. You’re perfectly satisfied that everything that’s
in here is exactly what you feel is correct, and there wasn’t anything sort of skimmed over.
MR. LAPPER-No, but there was one clarification that I don’t know if you got the final letter, which
is the same thing because of the lot number, there was a factual, the first time the letter was
generated, there was a factual issue because we changed the lot numbers because of removing this
one lot for tonight. So Lot 10 was originally the lot that has the existing barn structure up on the top
of the mountain, and that became Lot 9, and that was the only thing that was clarified the day the
letter was issued, and we are completely satisfied and comfortable that the facts are exactly as stated
in the APA letter, and if at some time Mrs. Mitchell decided to subdivide Lot One, she’d have to
come back here, obviously. She has no intention of doing that, and if she sold that lot, she would
have to apply to the APA for a permit for the sale of that lot.
MR. VOLLARO-As far as the cut plan is concerned, this one and a quarter acre cut limit, now is this
cut limit tied, in any way, into a landscaping plan or is this just a, I don’t like to use the word
“indiscriminant”, but I will, in other words, the builder or the contractor who’s doing that, does he
have any guidelines, other than the fact that he has to limit the cut to one and a quarter acre, but does
he have a cut plan that kind of defines what that is?
MR. STEVES-I believe that, as we stated, when each individual plan has to come in during review
for a building permit, that that would be detailed at that point. Not knowing the development
scheme, as Tom talked about, the size of the house, where they want to place their driveway, how
they want to angle the house, you know, the size, that’s going to be dependent upon the individual
lot developer, that when you come through subdivision, we have to try to put some kind of
constraints on that, and some limitation. So we did with saying the acre and a quarter, and that
included the driveway. Now I believe when you come back in for your building permit at that time,
there will be a plan showing you how far outside the envelope of the house that clearing limit will be,
and then the Staff will have to review that to make sure it complies with the acre and a quarter.
MR. LAPPER-I also want to point out that I know some of the people that spoke tonight aren’t
familiar with the Town’s procedures, but unlike some towns, this Town, of course, has a Code
Enforcement Officer. That doesn’t mean that things don’t get violated, but I can tell you that they’re
14
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
all over it, and that there would be remedies, and if you violate it, people in this Town, the Town’s
Staff is good, and they’re going to find out and they’re going to come after you, and it’s going to
wind up in court, and 15 years ago, that certainly wasn’t the case, but that’s the case now. So some
people are saying, gee, clearing limit, people are going to denude the mountain, and I don’t think that
that’s a valid argument in Queensbury.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m just looking at the comments that were made on a filtered view, and I can
understand what a filtered view is, the fact that there’s some careful cutting of that one and a quarter
acres, so that the view from the lake is not showing you an open, and the view from the house is kind
of filtered to the lake. I assume that’s what filtered view means. I haven’t heard the term before, but
it’s pretty self-explanatory.
MR. STEVES-A filtered view, if you want to call if that, I think the only way you could get a view of
the lake and have an open shot, without, unobstructed, if any at all, would be to take your acre and
make it a 10 foot path all the way down the mountain, which isn’t possible, and still maintain the
driveway and the area around your house. I went to the Town and met with Laura this afternoon
and we looked at their area, actually the Lake George Basin map that they have in the Planning
Office that shows the slope and the percent slopes in this area. Our lots are proposed on slopes as
it’s defined in the Planning Staff’s map, which I have a copy here, of eight to fifteen percent, and
looking at our plan, we average on those lots about 10 and a half percent at max, and then we went
our driveways parallel to the slope, and then the pictures that were taken of the subject houses that
another gentleman came up here, on those lower lots are on lots that are at greater than 25% slopes.
A big difference as far as, you take a couple of trees out in front of you with a 25% slope, you’re
going to be able to see some stuff. As far as these lots, you have an eight to ten percent slope,
sometimes no more than 15%. You have trees that I went up there and viewed, all these lots are
extremely wooded with 60 to 75 foot tall trees. You take a 30, 40, 50 foot clearing limit around that
house, and you’re only dropping 10, 12 feet across that at max, that’s even at a 20% grade, you’re
only going to be talking, at 15%, seven feet, and you’re going to have a 65 foot tree with a 40 foot
height requirement in the APA for your house, I don’t see how it’s going to be possible to be viewed
from the lake.
MR. VOLLARO-Some of these photographs that we have here I assume are a lot closer, these
homes are a lot closer to the lake than some of the homes.
MR. STEVES-I believe those are the ones that are on the east side of Lockhart Mountain Road,
down near 9L on slopes that are at 25% or greater.
MR. STROUGH-Well, for example, Bob, I think Number Two is the Kruger house. Now Kruger is
listed on the map on the northern part of the property.
MR. STEVES-On the east side.
MR. STROUGH-Adjacent to the property but on the northeast side.
MR. VOLLARO-On northeast side you said?
MR. STROUGH-Yes, and that’s going downhill at that point, I mean, sharply, steeply downhill.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s not jumping out at me. What lot are you on, John?
MR. STROUGH-The Lands of Kruger.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Lands of Kruger.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Matt, I have a question on how you’re saying it’s only a 15% when you’re
changing 100 feet in elevation.
MR. STEVES-I’m talking in the areas of where we’re proposing development, and I’ll pass this
through. This is right off the Town’s GIS system. Here’s the lots you’re talking about with the
pictures being taken. This is our property up here. Here’s where the lots are all proposed, and that
one lot that is proposed here is on that point that is, as the Town shows it as eight to fifteen percent,
and the white is 25% or greater, and the pictures that were taken were these homes out here, on a
steeper slope. You can pass that back and forth through the Board. What I’m saying is, I’m not
saying the property is not greater than 25% in some areas. I’m saying that the area that we’re
proposing the houses are not.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anymore questions, Bob?
15
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t think I have anymore. I’m pretty satisfied with my questions, or
complete with it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. The only thing I have to say is this is really pretty tough. You guys
come in and what you say sounds really fine. We feel like we’ve done a good job. Then the other
side comes in and, boy, I’ll tell you, I perk right up, and they’re not telling things that aren’t true, and
when Dr. Collins says that there’s a less than four percent, four milligrams per liter of do, of
dissolved oxygen. How come we didn’t know that before? And some of these things that are
happening to the lake. Why, when you came in and said that you’ve got six inches to twelve inches
of silt in that Bay, why didn’t we hear that two months ago? I mean, those are real quantitative
concerns that you’ve measured, and I really wish I’d known that before. I really thought we had
done a good job on this. I have second thoughts and I’m second guessing myself, and, you know, I
feel like Mr. West does. I have property on the lake, two and a half acres up at Hewlett’s Landing,
and I feel that other people should be able to enjoy the lake, too, but yet, I also have my concerns
about the lake because I have a pretty vested interest in the lake. So, right now I wish I wasn’t here.
MR. NACE-Cathy, can I address your one concern about dissolved oxygen?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, you can.
MR. NACE-It’s a very complex issue as to what causes the depleted levels of dissolved oxygen. It’s
not a very simple issue. It’s probably something that relates a lot more to the properties and what’s
going on on the properties that are close to the lake, rather than stuff that’s well back away from the
lake. With the stormwater management and with proper construction management of the houses on
this site, their potential for affecting that do level in the lake is a lot, lot less than the potential for all
those properties that are right on the lake.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to pick up on comments that Cathy made, as well as yourself, Tom.
I have always contested that the properties that are directly on the lake cause more degradation to the
water quality than the properties that we have reviewed here at the Planning Board, and I believe
that, specifically one of these pictures that was brought in is a house that we visited inadvertently
during our site visits, and there was an extremely steep slope back yard that went right to the lake,
and it was one of the most beautifully manicured lawns I’ve ever seen in my life. There’s no question
in my mind that fertilizers and pesticides and other things are getting into the water. It is everybody’s
job to help protect the quality of the lake, and I think that in our review of this project we have taken
those concerns into effect. The wastewater management plan I think was very well done. One of
the questions that I had, that you already asked was, my recollection of those trees is that they were
very mature, and one of the questions I had is what would you estimate the heights to be. I thought
they were probably 50 feet high, but, you know, being conservative, if they’re 60 to 75, clearly that’s
going to impact and provide a filter of visual impacts on this site. I guess I do have still a couple of
concerns regarding the visual impacts, but in the reviews of the topography, the other projects that
we have looked at where we had complete visual assessment reports, I really don’t believe that those
impacts will be great, and I also just want to make a quick comment, too, on the Adirondack Park
Agency letter that we received dated September 18, where the APA did say that they will receive
th
notification of the application to the local government, and they may participate as a party of interest
in the local review. We did not have any other comments from the APA other than this letter. So,
that tells me that they were not concerned with the project as it was designed.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you, Chris. John?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t know, week after week, month after month, we get applications
before us, 144 units, 156 units, 98 units, 134 units. I mean, I don’t know, maybe I get jaded, maybe I
get numbed. When somebody comes and there’s 11 lots, only 10 more to be developed, one is
already developed, so that’s 10 houses on 129 acres.
MR. LAPPER-136.
MR. STROUGH-Well, you take out the 12 from 141.
MR. LAPPER-Excuse me.
MR. STROUGH-And then we talk about nutrient loading, and then we talk about a comprehensive
plan. I agree. A comprehensive plan needs to be done, but it’s a comprehensive plan that all towns
and villages, all municipalities, even residences will have to abide by. I think that a lot of the nutrient
loading is coming from the competition from one member to the other to make their lawns look
16
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
nicer, look greener, and add the fertilizers and add the pesticides and add the fungicides, just so their
lawn looks real good. In the mean time, they are contributing to the loading that’s going on in Lake
George. There’s eyesores. People talked about visual eyesores. I mean, I like to think of myself as
sensitive to environmental and residential concerns, but I think every sundeck that comes before us
is an eyesore, every expansion of every house that comes before us is an added eyesore. I mean, you
could keep going and going and going with this, but I would go along with the idea that the whole
basin needs a comprehensive plan. I mean, there’s been one study after another, and nothing’s being
pulled together to come up with a comprehensive plan that everybody has to live by. Also, while
listening to the public comments, I thought there were a lot of good comments. I was, a lot of them
didn’t have an empirical backing to them. So I don’t know how much substance I can give to them,
and I think that, I don’t know how my other Planning Board members feel, but I think that one
potential solution, or at least mitigation, would be that for each of the ten homes that comes to be
developed, as the years progress, that I, as one Planning Board member, would be willing to review
them one at a time, look at their no cut zones. Look at their erosion control plan. I mean, and
consider the visual impact one at a time, and that way if they get the Planning Board stamp of
approval, I think the enforceability issue will be mitigated to an extent as well, and the reason why I
say Planning Board issue, I’m starting to think of conditions, there’s one public commentor that said,
well, you could make the driveway 100 foot wide, and have, you know, your visual view of the lake,
well, then I said, okay, let’s limit cutting to adjacent to the driveways. Let’s say driveways will be 12
foot in width, except up to 50 foot of the house, and they’ll be allowed to go the width of the garage
area, and there’ll be no cutting 10 foot from either side of the driveway, and then I’m thinking well,
gee, one thought leads to another and there’s just so many variables, so they come back to the same
original thought, that the only way really to assess the situation would be to look at each project as it
came before us, one at a time. So I’d be willing to do a Planning Board review of each project, if
that’s appropriate and if that’s legal all that stuff. I just don’t know that. I mean, I’m sure I’m going
to hear about it in a minute. So, anyway, that’s my comments.
MS. RADNER-You did place a number of limitations on the original subdivision approval, one of
which was that a construction plan was supposed to come before you, indicating the clearing plan for
each unit, or, I’m sorry, not come before you but come before your Planning Staff, and there was to
be a clearing plan reviewed for each unit as it was submitted. So you’ve already made that a
condition of the subdivision, and I would encourage you that when you consider approving this one,
and I’m not going to tell you to approve it or disapprove it, of course, but those conditions carry
forward and you may wish to acknowledge that in your amendment or modification you permit. In
terms of site plan approval for each individual house, there is nothing in your current town code that
permits that. It would become a question, then, of whether or not that was a reasonable condition of
this modification. I think it’s very questionable. The applicants might wish to agree to that, in which
case it’s a non-issue, but I question the legality of saying, although our Code doesn’t provide it, we’re
going to require that each of these homes come forward for individual site plan review.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thoughts?
MS. RADNER-Did you want more on the enforcement issue, too? I’m sorry. The suggestion was
made, and I disagree with it wholeheartedly, this part of this Board’s job is to include enforcement in
its conditions. One thing that we, as Town Counsel, try to do is when you make an approval that is
unenforceable, we stick our nose in and we say, no, that’s not anything we can enforce in court, if we
have to. We do have a Town Code. The Town Code says that people are obligated to follow the
conditions of site plan approval. When people don’t follow their site plans, and people do break
laws, and everyone in this room knows that. There are people who have violated the Town Code in
the past. There are people that have put up things without getting prior approvals. We all know
that. That happens. We have enforcement mechanisms in place. I’m in court, in your Town Court
on a weekly, pretty much, basis defending the Town or bringing actions in the name of the Town
because people violate Town Codes. We pursue these things. We have the mechanisms in place to
do that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Consensus?
MR. STROUGH-Well, can we get the applicant’s feelings on a Planning Board review, and can we
get we get the Board’s feelings? We’ve got one no.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not sure that that’s appropriate procedure for us to do.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I think it would probably make a whole lot of people feel more comfortable
if we were willing to do it for 10 houses in the next how many years. I mean, I just don’t think it’s
going to be a big deal. That way we can look at the no cut zone. We can look at the erosion control
plan. We can look at the stormwater runoff plan, and assess this one at a time as a Planning Board
and look at, seven people look at it.
17
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-If we made that a condition of approval, are you comfortable with us having that
review status?
MR. VOLLARO-No, I’m not.
MS. RADNER-I have not researched whether Planning Boards have done that in the past, and
whether that’s been upheld by the courts or not. It’s not something that’s contemplated in our
current Town Code when individual homes come up for building. They have to file a building plan
requirement, but individual lot owners typically do not have to come for site plan review. So I’m not
willing to give you an off the cuff yes. I know you’ve never done it before.
MR. MAC EWAN-Would you object to that?
MR. LAPPER-What I would say is that what you’ve already proposed, that it’s reviewed at Staff level
in terms of the cutting plan and compliance with the cutting plan, that that is something that goes
beyond what is normally the case, and we certainly agreed to that condition. My reluctance to agree
to a condition of site plan is just that that will effect marketability of the lots because that’s an
expense of having to hire professionals to build a house to go before the Board for approval which is
not something that is done on other lots in the Town. So we would prefer to stay with the condition
that was already imposed.
MR. MAC EWAN-But by the same token, conversely, is that I can tell you, the many years I’ve sat
on this Board and thinking about all the applications that’s come in front of this Board for various
locations on the lake, whether it be Assembly Point, Rockhurst, Cleverdale, wherever, I can tell you
that in nine out of ten applications, they’re accompanied by a professional.
MR. LAPPER-Could you give me a minute to speak to my client?
MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely. How about we take a five minute recess.
MR. LAPPER-Our reluctance is only a matter of just procedure and time. Because if the Staff
reviews it versus the Board, it’s just simpler and quicker. So I guess our question is, what the
consensus of the Board is. We already agreed that the Staff would review it, and of course that’s no
problem. I put the question to one of the opponents whether they would drop the lawsuit, because
that would certainly be incentive to consider an extraordinary condition, if we could avoid the
expense of litigation, and Mr. West said that he would go back and talk to the plaintiffs and consider
it, which is encouraging to me, but I guess it’s a question of how strongly the Board feels, and I mean
certainly this is different precedent than if we have Staff do it, just in terms of the cost. So I guess
I’m putting it back to you saying is there a consensus that that’s what you want?
MR. MAC EWAN-I really haven’t polled the Board to see what a consensus is and which way we
seem to be leaning on this. I think there was some discussion up here, but I really don’t know where
every member is standing at this point. I mean, really, I guess the two options that we have available
to us, because it seems to be the view shed seems to be the biggest issue here, revolving around this
modification. One is if we do bring it back and make it a condition of approval for the modification,
that each individual building site is subject to site plan review, our legal counsel has already indicated
to us that that’s kind of a gray area and she has some concerns and possible reservations about that.
The other scenario is if we did not go that route, but to have a more stringent view shed plan put
into effect that would require Staff, at the time of building permits, that you have a sheltered view of
the properties. I think that might work just as well, if not better than bringing everything in for a site
plan review process all over again, but I’ll start with Mr. Strough. What’s your feelings?
MR. STROUGH-Well, I think to look at this project, or each project in its entirety, the view shed,
the possible impact on the view shed, the stormwater runoff, the erosion control, look at all the
various factors that normally we would look at with site plan review. The only way we can do it is
site plan review one at a time, and I think that the public would be more comfortable with that. So I
feel strongly about site plan review.
MR. VOLLARO-Is that a yes, John?
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I had a question first before I made any comment. I didn’t know if
maybe Counsel had any further thoughts on the legality of this?
MS. RADNER-If the applicant agrees to it it’s clearly legal. If the applicant doesn’t agree to it, and
you impose it as a condition of site plan, of your approval, it becomes a question of, is it a reasonable
condition of your approval or not, and I have not researched that issue, and I know this Board has
18
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
not done this before, and I have some misgivings about whether you would have the authority to do
so.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I certainly agree with the comments both from the Chairman as well as
Mr. Strough. So I guess if I had to err, I would prefer to err on the side of conservatism and say that
I would like to see us do a site plan for each property.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I certainly support a site plan review for each house, due to the sensitive
nature of all the concerns that have been brought here, and I think that it would make for a better all
around development when everything is completely built out.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I can’t support that concept. I can’t support it on the basis that right now it’s
not part of our Town Code. I think it poses an unreasonable requirement on the developer, and if I
can get back into things like visual impacts, you know, we did a very thorough visual impact on Top
of the World. We’ve got views from the lake of several times that was far more development on that
hilltop than this will be when you start to cut back an acre and a half. They were building golf course
holes and a fairway and greens, and with all of that, when we took a look at the impact of that, the
visual impact from the lake, it wasn’t that great, I didn’t think anyway, and so when I look at the, on
balance, the one and a quarter acre cut limit on these lots, versus what I thought we looked at at that
visual impact statement on Top of the World. I would not put the lot owners through having to go
through a site plan review, unless the Town Code was changed for the Lake George basin to state
that in the Lake George basin we will indeed do that. So, unless we get that kind of change to the
Town Code, I would be not in favor of that.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-I agree very much with Bob, in that our original proposal was that Staff review and I
like that proposal.
MR. MAC EWAN-Where is that seventh member when you need him? Well, I’m in a position, as
one member of this Board, and I’m sure my fellow members will agree. I’d like to see this thing
move on and get some completion to it. It’s difficult because there’s some extenuating
circumstances revolving around this particular application that are, for the time being I guess, out of
the realm of the Planning Board, and it’s something that you and the other attorney need to discuss.
Right now where we sit is basically a three, three vote, and I guess I could be the swing vote here if I
could some assurances, in good faith, that you would subject to the site plan review, on an individual
development basis, and some assurances from you that you would drop your lawsuit and be satisfied
with the efforts that the Board is making on your behalf here to ensure that that development will
not effect, adversely, the lake, like you want to protect.
MR. WEST-Can I be heard on that?
MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely. This is a highly unusual situation here, for me, in all these years I’ve
served this Board.
MR. WEST-And I appreciate that, and I appreciate that it is difficult for the applicant, and it’s
difficult for the residents who are very concerned about the lake. I’m not the Counsel of record, as
your attorney will tell you, in the lawsuit. Tom Ulasewitz is the Counsel of record. Tom was hired
by the group because I was involved in an extensive proceeding this summer and could not get
involved with this case. I’m now back in action and here for the duration, and I suspect that I could
get together with the petitioners and with Tom, and we could sit down with Counsel for the
applicant and we could probably have some very meaningful settlement negotiations. These are not
difficult problems to solve if people have the goal of solving the problem. So I think settlement is a
good concept. I would suggest, under these circumstances, Mr. Chairman, that this matter be tabled
tonight with the consent of the applicant, and we’ll agree to meet with the applicant and its Counsel
to try and work out a solution that is lawful and that solves these problems in a manner that does not
kill this project but protects Lake George, which is the balance that we’re trying to strike, but to try
and broker a settlement live on the floor tonight, when I don’t even represent these people, I know a
number of them, I’m a party, so I can speak to them, but I’m not their attorney of record, isn’t going
to happen, but we’re willing to, always willing to engage in settlement. We want the lake protected.
We’re not here to kill the project, and so with those stated goals, there’s certainly grounds to work
out this issue.
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you.
19
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
MR. LAPPER-I will, at this point, ask to be adjourned for 30 days, because I would rather enter into
settlement discussions, rather than to have to have my client subjected to the time and the cost of
protracted litigation and appeals. So, for the sake of 30 days, if this could be settled, that would be a
better solution.
MR. MAC EWAN-Second meeting of next month?
MR. LAPPER-What’s wrong with the first?
MR. MAC EWAN-That wouldn’t be 30 days, it would be less than.
MR. NACE-Thirty days is figurative.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. The first meeting next month, please.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll table you.
MRS. MOORE-The first meeting is October 16.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-16?
th
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2001 HELEN
MITCHELL, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine
LaBombard:
To our first meeting of October, which is the 16 (Oct. 16, 2001).
th
Duly adopted this 25th day of September 2001 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
MR. LAPPER-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 36-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED KENNETH & CHERIE LUKE
PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: MR-5
LOCATION: 425 BAY ROAD APPLICANT IS CURRENTLY OPERATING A
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, THE DIET CENTER, AND IS PROPOSING SUB LEASE
OF 300 SQ. FT. FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICE SPACE (NOT KNOWN AT THIS
TIME). NEW USES IN MR-5 ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL PURSUANT TO SECTION 179-18 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 5-2001, AV 65-2001, SV 66-2001 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: 9/12/01 TAX MAP NO. 61-1-43 LOT SIZE: 8,398 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-
18
MR. MAC EWAN-This application is tabled pending ZBA review. Is that correct?
MRS. MOORE-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going to open up the public hearing and leave it open.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
SITE PLAN 37-2001 TYPE II RICHARD & CHRISTINE MOZAL PROPERTY
OWNRES: SAME AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES/MICHAEL O’CONNOR ZONE:
WR-1A LOCATION: DOCKSIDER RESTAURANT APPLICANT REQUESTS REVIEW
OF A 30 SQ. FT. AREA WITHIN FIFTY FEET OF THE SHORELINE OF GLEN LAKE
AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 397 +/- FEET RETAINING WALL ALONG THE
PROPERTY LINE. FILL WITHIN ’50 OF THE SHORELINE AND CONSTRUCTION
OF THE RETAINING WALL REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
20
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AP 1-2001 GLEN LAKE CEA TAX MAP NO. 38-4-2
LOT SIZE: 1 ACRE SECTION: WR-1A
MR. MAC EWAN-This application has been withdrawn, is that accurate?
MRS. MOORE-It’s been removed from the agenda.
MR. MAC EWAN-Removed from the agenda. Do you want me to open the public hearing?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MICHAEL O’CONNOR
MR. O'CONNOR-Objection, Mr. Chairman. It has been put on for the first meeting of next month.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-October 16.
th
MR. MAC EWAN-Is it going to be re-advertised?
MR. O'CONNOR-Town Staff was the one that moved it. They were going to, but then we had
some discussions whether or not it would have to go back to the ZBA. Those discussions ended up
with the position that the applicant did not need to go back to the ZBA, and during the course of
discussion they said that they were going to remove it from this agenda to the next agenda. As far as
we know, you might want to avoid the cost of advertising, you might want to open the public hearing
and leave it open.
MR. MAC EWAN-Done.
MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry. The chances are it wasn’t advertised by the 500 foot notice because it
may have been removed earlier, prior to us mailing out notifications. So I don’t think you can open a
public hearing on it.
MS. RADNER-It’s going to be re-noticed regardless.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-I just didn’t want it to be inferred that we had withdrawn the application.
MS. RADNER-No, it’s just adjourned.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So noted.
SITE PLAN NO. 34-2001 TYPE II J.G. HARRIS & JOHN HARRIS PROPERTY
OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 171 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES A 280 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO 1,164 SQ. FT.
SECONDARY DWELLING. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE
IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. WARREN
CO. PLANNING: 9/12/01 APA, LAKE GEORGE CEA TAX MAP NO. 7-1-28 LOT
SIZE: 0.96 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79
JOHN HARRIS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 34-2001, J.G. Harris & John Harris, Meeting Date: September 25,
2001 “Project Description
The applicant proposes an expansion of an existing secondary house on the waterfront. The
property currently has one main home, a year round apartment above the garage and a seasonal
bunkhouse. The applicant intends to construct a 280 square foot addition to the seasonal
bunkhouse. The addition will expand two bedrooms and add a utility room. The applicant’s parcel
is about 0.91 acres in size. The addition has minimal affects on the permeable and floor area ratio of
the property. The applicant’s drawing shows an existing and proposed sketch of the building. The
septic system is designed to accommodate the 7 bedrooms that are associated with the site (Septic
Permit 2000-868).
Areas of Concern or Importance
21
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
The applicant had previously applied to the Zoning Board for variance relief and was tabled pending
additional information. The application was revised and was determined to no longer need an area
variance, but would require site plan review.”
MRS. MOORE-I’ll note a change, under SEQRA, it is a Type II, it’s not an Unlisted Action.
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Could you identify yourself for the record?
MR. HARRIS-Hi. I’m John Harris.
MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours, Mr. Harris.
MR. HARRIS-Well, basically she said it all. She said it very concisely and very well. We need more
space. The bedrooms we have are very small in the bunkhouse, and as the family has grown, and we
now have grandchildren and babies and that, we need bedrooms big enough to put a crib next to the
bed kind of thing, and that’s part of it. The second part is that the current building is heated with
electric heat, and it’s become cost prohibitive that way. So what we’d like to do is put a furnace,
boiler in, actually, in two zones, and we need a utility room to do that, for the boiler and the fuel oil
tanks, and that’s basically what we’re trying to do.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Chris, I’ll start with you.
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the first question is that we kind of talk about every time we see a similar
project, and that is the whole issue with the bunkhouse being seasonal, because certainly once you
put in heat, and it could be used year round.
MR. HARRIS-Well, there’s, the reason it’s a nonconforming building, I believe, is that there is an
apartment also attached to that building, and this is on the second floor, and my original proposal
was to go two stories over top of the bunkhouse, and expand the apartment and so forth, and the
variance board was concerned that that would be used as another rental property. I assured them
that was not the case. We have no intention of doing that, and their concern was, well, if you sell it,
what’s the next people going to do?
MR. HUNSINGER-Right.
MR. HARRIS-And so I decided, well, we’ll forfeit that room up there, and what we’ll do is we’ll do
just the small expansion to the back, and it is, there’s no kitchen facilities. There is a bathroom in it,
but, no, it is definitely a seasonal thing, and the reason that the furnace will be a two zone system is
that the current apartment, which is also electric heat, will be changed over, and that’ll be one zone
for that apartment and one zone for the bunkhouse. So as we use it, we get together, Christmas,
whatever, we can heat just that section and not have to worry about the whole thing.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s all I had.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-Did you say there was no bathroom?
MR. HARRIS-There is a bathroom.
MR. VOLLARO-There is a bathroom, because I’m looking at your plan.
MR. HARRIS-What we want to do is expand, see, right now the bathroom has a shower in it, and
my son said you can’t wash a baby in the shower. So we would like a tub put in. That’s part of the
plan.
MR. VOLLARO-Do you plan on insulating this building?
MR. HARRIS-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-So you’ll have heat, insulation and so on, and that, the fuel tanks in the back, in the
utility room, will be fuel oil, is that what you’re planning to heat with?
MR. HARRIS-Yes. The exact floor plan is under family discussion, but generally speaking.
22
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
MR. VOLLARO-That’s why it says possible floor plan, I see that.
MR. HARRIS-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Other than the seasonal occupation thing that I’m kicking around in my head here,
because we’re always somewhat concerned about taking any of the buildings up on the lake and
making them full time residence buildings with capabilities and so on, and that’s been something that
this Board’s been trying to address for a long time, and this thing has overtones of that.
MR. HARRIS-Well, that’s why I had to cut back from the original, when I went to the variance. The
reason I had to go for a variance was that I wanted to, like I said, put a second story on and that
would have been above the height limits that the Town has set, and so, therefore, that’s why I
figured that, you know, we’d reduce it so that it would not look like we’re trying to put in another
apartment, because that’s not the intention.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, I was looking at your site development data, and that basically looks, and also
the floor area ratio worksheets are both in order. So that’s probably why you didn’t need a variance,
because neither of those things were required.
MR. HARRIS-Right.
MR. VOLLARO-So, other than that, I don’t have any further comments on this application.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-No, I didn’t have anything.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-No comment.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Any additional Staff comments?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-Board comments?
MR. VOLLARO-None.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 34-2001 J. G. HARRIS & JOHN HARRIS,
Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No 34-2001, J. G. Harris & John
Harris. Applicant proposes a 280 sq. ft. residential addition to 1,164 sq. ft. secondary dwelling.
Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval.
Warren Co. Planning: 9/12/01, APA, Lake George CEA, Tax Map No. 7-1-28, Lot size: 0.96 acres,
Section: 179-16, 179-79, and;
WHEREAS, the application was received 8/01; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly
received information, not included in this listing as of 9/21/01:
9/25 Staff Notes
9/18 Notice of Public Hearing:
9/12 Warren Co. PB recommendation - NCI
9/6 Meeting Notice
23
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 9/25/01 concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building
Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application is approved in accordance with the resolution as prepared by Staff.
Duly adopted this 25th day of September 2001 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Mr. Harris. Sorry for the wait.
MR. HARRIS-It was interesting.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it certainly was.
MR. HARRIS-Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome.
SITE PLAN NO. 39-2001 ELIZABETH O’CONNOR LITTLE PROPERTY OWNER:
SAME AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION:
FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 336 SQUARE
FOOT GARAGE AND A 635 SQUARE FOOT DECK. EXPANSION OF A NON-
CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
AND APPROVAL. GLEN LAKE CEA CROSS REFERENCE: AV 70-2001 TAX MAP
NO. 41-1-33.2 LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79
MICHAEL O’CONNOR & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 39-2001, Elizabeth O’Connor Little, Meeting Date: September 25,
2001 “Project Description
The application has been amended since the original submission. The original submission was for a
635 square foot deck addition and 336 square foot attached garage. The revision was submitted on
September 19, 2001 for the ZBA meeting. The deck addition has been reduced to 300 square feet
and the garage has been increased to 384 square feet as a detached building. The proposal also
includes removal of an existing shed.
The Zoning Board reviewed the revised information an acted on the variance relief for the deck and
has tabled the action on the variance relief requested for the detached garage building (see attached
resolution).
The applicant has not submitted revised drawings for the Planning Board review.
Areas of Concern or Importance
The application was advertised only for the 635 square foot deck addition and the 336 square foot
attached garage.
24
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
Suggestions
Staff would suggest the applicant provide revised drawings addressing the proposal.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening.
MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. For the purpose of your record, I’m Michael
O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor, and I’m representing the applicant, and with me
is Matt Steves from the firm of VanDusen and Steves who is also representing the applicant.
Basically, Elizabeth O’Connor Little wishes to build a deck on the front of the family home that she
is in the process of moving into. The deck will be 12 feet in depth, front to back if you will. It’ll be
to the full width of the existing building, 25 feet. It will be constructed out of pressure treated
materials. It will have a 36 inch railing. It will have spindles so that children are protected if they are
on the deck, the separation between the spindles will be two to three inches, or something of that
nature. The deck will have three posts. The area underneath the deck will be left as lawn, and the
deck will be constructed so that it will be open, so that there, the rain can go through the deck or go
down to the lawn, as it presently exists. The posts will be set 10 feet from the house. There’d be like
a two foot overhang in front of the deck. We believe that the deck will be constructed out of two by
eight material, framing material, sixteen inches on center. When we presented it to the Zoning Board
of Appeals, we said that it was undetermined whether or not we would have a staircase from the deck
down to the ground. That’s still undetermined. The initial plan had a staircase, had a jut out, if you
will, on the north side of the deck, with the staircase returning back to the ground at a higher level,
and when the deck was made smaller, that was removed. If there is a staircase, it will return to the
ground inside the framework, if you will, of the house, and it may be a standard construction
staircase, and it may be circular, or there may not be a staircase. I think she would like to try it first
without a staircase and see how convenient or inconvenient it is. If it’s not convenient, she will build
a staircase down, but it would not be something that would encroach or project beyond the deck
itself. The deck, as it’s going to be constructed, is going to sit into the front of the frame of the
house. I, personally, own the property that’s to the north and have no objection. My two sisters
own the property to the south.
MR. MAC EWAN-Shouldn’t you wait for the public hearing on that one?
MR. O'CONNOR-And have no objection. It’s a simple deck. This was my mother’s house. My
mother and father bought these properties in 1952. I bought the property on the north, I think, in
the early 1980’s, after my father died. My mother kept the other two properties, and part of the
division here is that Betty gets the main house, or the house in the middle, and my other two sisters
get the lower house. When my mother and father owned all three properties, there were a lot of
things that were back and forth, which is the next subject. My mother’s garage is actually on the
property that goes to my two sisters, Ruthie and Mary Lois. It’s a single car garage. So Betty,
basically, will have this house without a garage, and what she’s tried to do is fit a garage onto the
property. She’s come down to the point that she’s downsized it considerably. It’s a single car garage.
We’re going to put it at the rear of the property, as a freestanding garage, so that we can do the least
lot disturbance that we will do. I think the garage in the back is going to be 16 feet by 24 feet, and it
will be a gable type roof. We came to a conclusion as to what type of garage and where the garage
would be located, a gambrel roof, late, and Staff didn’t have a chance to look at it or make comment,
or, in fact, to properly advertise that. So the Zoning Board approved the deck without prejudice to
the rest of the application, and simply said come back and make your presentation on the rest of the
application. When we go in for the rest of the application, we will be asking for a setback variance
from the back lot line, which is a drop off area if you went up and looked at the property. It drops
off into Gardner’s property behind us. It’s not an area that’s used by anyone for housing. It’s not an
area that’s developed. The garage itself probably is less obtrusive than the dock, the deck. We’re also
asking, I think, Matt, for a variance on height of two feet, on the garage.
MR. STEVES-On the garage, eighteen feet instead of sixteen. To allow for some storage, because
the house itself limits itself to storage. So she’d like to be able to have the one car garage, maybe
have a 16 foot roof that flattens to the point where you really can’t use the upper level for storage, so
putting a gambrel roof or a barn style roof with the two angled roofs and raising it the two feet gives
you a corridor in the middle of the garage that would be usable for storage on the upper level.
MR. O'CONNOR-The garage probably will not be visible from the lake. It’ll be directly behind the
house. If you go out to the north, you’ve got Bob Hughes’ property, and I just don’t think it will be
visible. It would be visible at all from my backyard or from the backyard of my two sisters’, possibly
from Floyd Rourke’s backyard.
MR. MAC EWAN-And you’ve already been on record and said you have no concerns with the
action next door to you, right?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
25
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, I’ll start with you.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I can see the validity of moving the, I think the way it was proposed before
might have been a little difficult with the electrical back there. We were wondering about that when
we did site visits and said, you know, this might better be a separate garage, attached to the house.
MR. STEVES-We looked at how to attach it to the house, I went on a site visit with a contractor and
looked at the electrical, and it just worked much better to put it back, and it was actually, as Mike
said, the best solution to any neighboring properties.
MR. VOLLARO-What’s that 20 foot right of way? Would you be putting the garage in that right of
way? Is that where that would go?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. What right of way is that?
MR. O'CONNOR-It serves my property. It serves the Barton property, Mike Hogan’s property, and
Hughes’ property.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-And I think probably we will formalize something different than what is there.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. O’CONNOR-It’s never been honored. You have a building behind my property that’s right in
the middle.
MR. VOLLARO-I see the shed is sitting right in the middle of the right of way.
MR. STEVES-It’s a right of way for ingress and egress and you can see where the ingress and egress
actually is is in front of those sheds.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes.
MR. STEVES-So it just makes sense to leave it there.
MR. VOLLARO-I noticed on the drawing it has asphalt to be removed on two sides of that, and the
one that concerns me somewhat is the approximate position of the septic tank. Is there a clean out
there in the concrete?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. VOLLARO-Right now the asphalt, you can get to that?
MR. STEVES-Right now, the clean out right now is just off the edge of the asphalt into the lawn.
There’s a concrete square that is there, and that is the clean out to the septic tank.
MR. VOLLARO-That is the clean out. We were wondering what that block was. Okay. Other than
that, it seems pretty straightforward to me, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-The garage, you haven’t got approval from the ZBA on that?
MR. O'CONNOR-We have not.
MR. RINGER-So we couldn’t act on the garage tonight anyway.
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, you could give conditional approval.
MR. RINGER-Not without the ZBA we couldn’t give conditional approval.
MS. RADNER-Right. You’d have to wait for the ZBA. You’re only acting on the deck tonight.
You can consider both and you can ask questions of the applicant on both.
MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, the drawing itself really, you get down into proposed conditions.
26
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
MS. RADNER-I’m sorry. Laura just told me you’re not going to see the garage back anyway.
MR. MAC EWAN-No. The garage is part of the application. You won’t be back here with the
garage.
MR. O'CONNOR-On a nonconforming lot, so anything that we do on it gets thrown back here or
not?
MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry, an expansion of a nonconforming structure. A garage is considered a new
structure on the site. The Planning Board does not review new construction on the site. Is that
what you’re looking for?
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you.
MR. RINGER-So we won’t look at the garage.
MR. MAC EWAN-We won’t see the garage. We’re only acting on the deck.
MR. RINGER-And the deck is not the one that’s shown on the thing, but cut back. You’ve got a
new one up there?
MR. STEVES-Yes. It’s just the width of the house, 25 feet only, and 12 feet out. It does not wrap
around to the north side of the house.
MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything else.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-No, nothing. I think, as far as the garage, forthcoming right now, I think the
location across the road was much more, it’s a better location because the electrical was there and I
thought they might have to move that because NiMo, I don’t think, and then the septic system,
there’s question about that. So I was real happy to see this. I thought it was just better all the way
around, and that’s it, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m confused. When I looked at this, the note that I made to myself was how
can we approve the garage without ZBA approval, but I guess the garage has changed, the location
of the garage has changed.
MR. STEVES-The garage is now located not attached to the house, but proposed in the back of the
property.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR. STEVES-The plan up here on the board demonstrates that, and that was the plan that was
reviewed at the time by the Zoning Board, but wasn’t advertised for the garage in that location.
That’s correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-So you still need to go back to the ZBA, or no?
MR. STEVES-Just for the garage.
MR. HUNSINGER-Just for the garage. Okay. I mean, I certainly don’t have any problems with the
deck, but I was confused with the garage.
MR. STEVES-Right, and all you’re looking at at this time is the deck also.
MR. HUNSINGER-Okay.
MS. RADNER-The ZBA varied from their usual procedure. This is a little bit unusual. It’s the first
time we’ve seen them do it where they went ahead and acted on half of an application and tabled the
other half. So you’re confusion is for good reason.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s unusual.
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m all set.
27
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m fine. I just think it would be nice to bring the deck all the way around. It
would be more serviceable.
MR. O'CONNOR-There was a deck all the way around when my father was alive.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I’m aware of where the garage was going to go.
MR. O'CONNOR-This is a family compromise.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does
anyone want to comment on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments? Does someone want to introduce a motion please?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 39-2001 ELIZABETH O’CONNOR LITTLE,
Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 39- 2001, Elizabeth O’Connor
Little. Applicant proposes construction of a 300 sq. ft deck (revised from original submission of
application for a 635 sq. ft. deck.) Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA requires
Planning Board review and approval. Glen Lake CEA. Cross Reference: AV 70-2001. Tax Map
No. 41-1-33.2. Lot size: 0.23 acres. Section: 179-16, 179-79 and;
WHEREAS, the application was received 8/01; and
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly
received information, not included in this listing as of 9/21/01:
9/25 Staff Notes
9/19 ZBA resolution – Approved relief for deck / Tabled relief for garage
9/18 Notice of Public Hearing
9/5 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 9/25/01 concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building
Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application is approved and is subject to the following conditions:
1. This approval is for a 12’ by 25’ foot deck addition, as depicted on a plan revised on
9/17/01. This approval or disapproval of the deck is without prejudice to the rest
of the application. [The Board’s intent was to remove the proposed garage addition
from the application, because it was no longer part of the site plan review.]
Duly adopted this 25th day of September 2001 by the following vote:
28
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Strough, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
MR. O'CONNOR-The motion says this approval or disapproval. Which was it?
MR. STROUGH-Well, if it got approved or not approved. The motion was to approve it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we approved the deck.
MR. STROUGH-What I said in addition to that, not dependent on the approval or disapproval is the
garage, the other part of the application.
MS. RADNER-Which is superfluous language anyway because this Board has no power over the
Zoning Board.
MR. O'CONNOR-All right. I heard you differently. Thank you.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set.
MR. VOLLARO-Good luck, Mike.
SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2001 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE:
UNLISTED HAL RAVEN (THE VISTAS) PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: AN
DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION: WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES A CLUSTER SUBDIVISION OF A 31.35 +/- ACRE PARCEL
INTO 3 LOTS OF 1.64 ACRES (LOT 9), 1.84 ACRES (LOT 10), AND 27.87 ACRES (LOT
11). CROSS REFERENCE: SB 19-1993 TAX MAP NO. 87-1-10.1 LOT SIZE: 31.35 ACRES
SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 10-2001 Preliminary Stage Final Stage, Meeting Date:
September 25, 2001 “Project Description
The applicant proposes a cluster subdivision of a 31.35 acre parcel into 3 lots. The two lots
proposed for development are noted as lot 10 at 1.84 acres and Lot 9 at 1.64 acres. The remaining
Lot 11 is 27.87 acres and is not proposed for development at this time.
Study of plat (§ A183)
??
Lot arrangement: The lots are located at the end of Veranda Lane in the center of a conceptual
looped cul-de-sac. The applicant does not have approval to lay out lots as conceptually shown, nor will
this subdivision review grant the conceptual layout view.
??
Topography: The elevation changes every fifty feet going up 10 ft. This is a 20 % slope. The
driveways should be designed to divert water runoff from Veranda Road and should be maintained on
site.
??
Water supply and Sewage disposal: The plans show proposed on site septic and well locations.
??
Drainage: The dwellings should be constructed so stormwater runoff is not a problem to the home.
??
Lot sizes: The applicant proposes a cluster development
??
Placement of utilities: Connections are not shown
??
Future development: The applicant intends future subdivision similar to the conceptual sketch.
??
Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The project is located in Neighborhood #3 of the 1998
Comprehensive Plan. The Plan does not identify anything specific for this area.
??
State Environmental Quality Review Act: A short environmental assessment form has been
completed
Areas of Concern or Importance
The applicant intends to subdivide the remaining lands but is unable to do so at this time. The
applicant has requested a waiver from the cluster requirement to have minimum of five lots. The
zoning administrator has indicated that this proposal is not consistent with the cluster regulations,
September 2001.
29
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
Reference Information
Approvals:
??
2/6/80: -7-Lot Subdivision with 13-Lots for future development, (Noted as Sub 4-78)
one –2.23 ac, two –3.599 ac, three –2.735 ac, four –1.923 ac, five –2.283 ac, six –
o
1.30 ac, seven –0.726 ac
Zone R-3 and R-2: minimum lot size 12,000 square feet.
o
??
11/24/92: 7-Lot Subdivision (Noted as Sub 4-78)
one-2.19ac, two-3.53 ac, three –2.77ac, four –2.40 ac, five –2.29 ac, six –1.62 ac,
o
seven –0.76 ac
Zone: SFR-1A, RR-3A, and LC-10
o
??
10/28/93: 3-Lot Subdivision (Noted as Sub 19-1993) (file notes that this was part of the
1980 subdivision
two –2.93 ac, three –2.12 ac, eight 1.25 ac
o
Zone: SFR-1A, RR-3A, and LC-10
o
Proposed:
??
September 2001 3-Lot with 12 lots for future and 8-Lots existing for a total of 23 Lots
nine –1.64, ten –1.84”
o
MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. My name is Matt Steves of VanDusen and Steves, and I represent Hal
Raven on this application. As Staff has commented, this is an additional two lots of The Vistas
subdivision. A little bit of history on this, this was called the Berkley subdivision, I believe, back in
the late 1970’s. I think filed in maybe 1980, ’81, for seven lots, then Mr. Raven purchased the
property, subsequently reviewed, added some changes made to the road design to bring it up to the
current subdivision standards, developed the road and then broke off an additional Lot Eight on one
of the road bends, and that was the only other time I think this was in front of the Board. The two
proposed lots are on the westerly end of the property, on the top with the “T” turnaround, and the
subdivision that is shown surrounding the rest of the property, entailed in the rest of the property,
isn’t necessarily what’s going to be there. We envision a cluster subdivision of more than the two
lots, eventually to somewhere in the neighborhood of seven to eight more lots, with some
conservation area in the back where the steeper slopes are. I just wanted to be able to show what a
typical subdivision would look like in that area. I know that only two lots doesn’t meet the cluster
provision. I’m trying to figure out a way to have this Board review that, understanding that he will be
coming in to further subdivide this.
MR. MAC EWAN-Why doesn’t he do it now?
MR. STEVES-For monetary constraints. He wants to be able to, he has a buyer for one of these
lots, and a potential buyer for a second lot, which would be able to build the two homes, and then
give him the money to be able to develop the rest of the property.
MR. MAC EWAN-But simply put, isn’t this putting the cart in front of the horse?
MR. STEVES-Well, as far as this Board’s concerned, I mean, we can look at it as two lots, or, you
know, whatever comments the Staff might have. I understand the Board and the Staff’s concern, but
I am limited by my client.
MR. RINGER-If we looked at it as just two lots, though, then it wouldn’t fall into the zoning, unless
we clustered it, unless you cluster it.
MR. STEVES-Right.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess I’d ask a question. How did this get to this point here tonight? I don’t
understand. I’m missing something here.
MR. STEVES-There’s the cluster provision, the subdivision requirements of this Board can grant
relief from that. I believe that’s the case, why we’re here.
MR. MAC EWAN-But that doesn’t even come close to the definition of clustering. Why would we
want to grant relief to that when it’s not even conceptually close?
MR. STEVES-Understood, as I said that the rest of the subdivision looping around would conform
to your cluster provisions by retaining area in the back of the steeper slopes with a strip off the road
to dedication for maybe the Land Conservancy or the new group formed by the Town of
Queensbury, the Queensbury Land Trust, something along those lines. It’s just, at this time, to go
30
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
through the full design of the road and all that is entailed to develop the entire property, he’s just
unable to do that at this time.
MR. MAC EWAN-There’s no guarantee that it would come back in the future either.
MR. STEVES-No, I cannot guarantee that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Can I ask a question? Do the people specifically want those two lots, the
ones that were already in the first phase, or whatever you want to call it of this subdivision? Those
weren’t desirable lots?
MR. STEVES-The other lots that remain in the lower?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And what about Lot Number Four where that parcel, the building is not
completed?
MR. STEVES-The large home?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes.
MR. STEVES-That was Mr. Raven’s father was building that.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I know.
MR. STEVES-He hasn’t been able to persuade his father to do anything with it yet. He hopes to be
able to reach a conclusion with his father. I don’t know if this Board has known that story or even
wants to hear it, but his mother and father got back together after 20 some odd years of a divorce, re-
married, and after they both retired and the mother had an aneurysm, and she is in a coma and hasn’t
regained since about six years ago, and so the father just kind of lost hope and just put everything on
hold.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So Hal is kind of, would like to have somebody, so he’s putting the house on
hold. He doesn’t really want to sell that house and have somebody else build there.
MR. STEVES-He wants to finish that house.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what I thought.
MR. STEVES-And sell it or finish it for himself. He has put in about $30,000 of his own money,
and to get it to the point where he can at least have it roofed, he would like to be able to proceed and
finish that house, absolutely.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But these people want these two lots specifically?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s the reason for this.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct, and that would be able to give him the funds to develop the rest of the
property and potentially finish that house.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now, would you just explain to me where the cluster is here? Because when
I think of cluster, I think of what we did in Hudson Pointe.
MR. STEVES-Understood, and in this instance on your cluster provision, if I’m not mistaken, you
have what would be considered like severe slopes or an area for conservancy or open space, and
what we’re saying, in the back of these lots on the extreme west of this property, when we loop these
around, and if one of these lots with an access road or the back of all these lots against this other
property with an access off this loop road would be eventually developed into a plan to, for some
kind of a conservancy or open space, so that the remaining lots, including these two, would be about
seven, eight lots that would eventually meet your cluster provision, and I understand, as the
Chairman said putting the cart before the horse, but at the same time, it’s a constraint that I have to
deal with, based upon the availability of funds from my client. These two lots are off the existing
road. To be honest with you I know that it’s an option that I even discussed with them. When you
have two lots, one that is a contract to purchase, he has a contract to build the house. He can’t
31
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
contract to sell the lot until there’s a lot to sell. To get the other lot and get the contract on that, it is
a lot easier to obtain funding, as far as building permits or building loans, to sit on an individual lot,
we could take the lot, combine it, and just have one lot and have it three acres and have a line down
the middle that has to be some kind of an easement line that has to be future subdivided, and then all
it does is it encumbers the first home to be built with a release of mortgage premises. It was just
cleaner to try to get two lots. I understand this is a pretty unique situation, but we’re trying to do it
without encumbering, you know, the site too bad. I understand. I’m open to suggestions from the
Board.
MR. RINGER-Why can’t he lay out the whole subdivision, and show the clustering and show the
land that’s going to be conserved?
MR. STEVES-Well, I did topography up to a point that includes these two lots, and in order for me
to continue with that and do the road design, and all that’s required for preliminary approval at this
Board, I don’t think that he wants to spend that kind of money at this time.
MR. RINGER-And I can understand that, but to ask us to approve something that, you know, it
just.
MR. STEVES-I’m asking for a waiver from the cluster provision telling you that when this comes
back in, after these two lots are approved, that it will conform to a cluster development. The only
other option I have at this time is to say that we will review this as one lot, and remove the lot line
between the two lots, and then it would be over a three acre and conform with zoning. It would not
require cluster.
MR. MAC EWAN-For him to come back in and do the remaining phase of this subdivision, all it’s
requiring him to do is sell the lots, not actually start building on them?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-So if we made a condition of approval that said that if we gave consideration to
approving this tonight and we tacked something on there that said that, prior to issuance of building
permit.
MR. STEVES-Or one building permit not to, he has a contract for a house on one, but would not
allow him to permit, to get a building permit on the second lot until the rest of the subdivision was
reviewed by this Board.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s reasonable, I guess.
MR. STEVES-And therefore if the subdivision, I would even put on to that that if the subdivision
was not approved by this Board, that this lot would revert back to a three acre lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Larry, did you have anything else?
MR. RINGER-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Well, clustering is a concept, it’s a two way street. I mean, the developer asks us to
allow clustering, which is to allow, well, substandard lots for a given zone location, but the
community’s going to benefit from this. It’s going to get something out of this, and so that it works
both ways. The developer will reduce the amount of streets and utilities and etc., etc., that they’re
going to use, but the community gets something out of it, okay. So clustering is a two way street.
MR. STEVES-Understood, and at this point, reviewing this as a cluster or taking it away from the
cluster but knowing what’s coming in, is at this time you have no impacts as far as new roads.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t see what the community’s gaining from it, but it is also two lots. I
mean, if someone is opposed to this concept, opposed to this development, and we were to approve
it, that clearly, to me, is segmentation, without looking at the full project, looking at it piecemeal, it’s
clearly segmentation in my mind. I have no problem with developing that up there, but just the
problem is the way it’s being presented to me. I see the potential for 12 other lots, but that may or
may not be. You’re just conceptually giving us a presentation.
MR. STEVES-Just like anything else, when a subdivision comes in for one phase and somebody
potentially could be building the rest of the property doesn’t mean it’s ever going to happen. What’s
in front of you today is a three lot subdivision.
32
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
MR. STROUGH-Yes, it doesn’t give me the advantage of seeing what the big picture looks like. I’m
looking at a small part of it, and it’s not clustering. It doesn’t meet the minimum requirements of
clustering. I mean, if you came to me as a two parcel subdivision, you know, I might look at it
differently, but that’s not the way it’s being presented. In secret we’ve got to look at the stormwater
lay out, the landscaping, the highway lay out. It’s got to be a lay that’s in harmony with the land. I
can’t look at two lots and approve a cluster concept, not with what you’ve given me. Even Lot
Seven, I see Lot Seven, I see the driveway to the house and basically that’s where the road’s going to
be, and now will that be defined as the front of the house and will that meet setback requirements?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. STROUGH-But anyhow, that’s not the bigger question. The bigger question I’ve always stated,
and I can’t support this concept, as it’s presented to me now. It doesn’t mean I’m against
development up there, it’s just the concept.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I had similar problems trying to understand what it was we were trying to look
at here. I don’t mean to reiterate what John said, but it was just very difficult to understand what
we’re trying to do without seeing the whole plan, and it’s also difficult to make assessments and pass
judgements on the project, but I guess I’ll defer to other members as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I think this project’s been in limbo for six years?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I would okay this, because I think it’s an extenuating circumstance, and
that maybe to make it more aesthetic along that West Mountain Road, and to get some kind of
movement in there. I’ll go for putting these two lots in at this point, even though I’m not so sure I
agree with my reasoning.
MR. MAC EWAN-Honestly, they’re all the wrong reasons to approve a subdivision.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know, but I think that this is a case where maybe we need a little shot in the
arm here.
MR. MAC EWAN-I couldn’t disagree with you more.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s okay. We’re all entitled to our opinions.
MR. MAC EWAN-Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-The fact that the Zoning Administrator has indicated that this proposal is really not
consistent with cluster regulations, and the fact that I can’t see what the total cluster package would
look like on this drawing, and have no idea how they’d be laid out, pretty much paraphrases what Mr.
Strough had to say. I couldn’t support it the way it’s positioned here.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’m hearing four members.
MR. STEVES-Okay. Question for the Board, as we had discussed quickly with the Chairman, as far
as limiting this to one building permit, he has the ability, without a subdivision, to get one building
permit now on that property. So, effectively, he can’t be getting anymore building permits than he is
allowed at this time. I mean, if you wanted to consider it as a two lot subdivision, and just having it
as three acres, and then we’d have to work around the one contract vendee to allow us to be able to
have an easement over half of it for a future lot.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think the consensus I’m hearing up here on the Board is they want to see the
entire plan. So I guess at this point I would encourage your client to spend the extra money to do
the full scale plan.
MR. STEVES-And I’d ask the Board, if it was just one lot of three acres, where cluster is not an
issue, what their consensus would be at that point. If you took the lot line out, and if the lot
conformed with the zoning, no cluster provision is required, and it’s just breaking one three acre lot
out in a three acre zone, at the end of an existing town road with no new infrastructure necessary,
what is the Board’s feeling on that?
MR. STROUGH-I wouldn’t have a problem with that.
33
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
MR. STEVES-Well, then that’s what.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. We’d be looking at revising this application, wouldn’t we?
MRS. MOORE-Revising the application.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You’re not looking for any action tonight no matter which way you go
here.
MR. STEVES-I don’t know if an action could be made to just say that the two lots must be merged
into one lot.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s a totally different concept.
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I’m not comfortable with that. Some input from Staff?
MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant has requested a waiver from the minimum requirements of
cluster, but he’s also requested a cluster development. It’s up to the Board to decide whether they
want to review it as a cluster development. So they can, you can indicate that you’re not in favor of
the cluster development, have the applicant revise the plan so it would meet the minimum
requirements. The applicant has indicated the lots as proposed on the lots nine and ten, if they’re
combined as one lot, they do meet the minimum requirements of the three acre zone.
MR. VOLLARO-So would you recommend coming in with that approach?
MRS. MOORE-If the Board’s more comfortable seeing that change, in a visual form, they can have
them tabled, or if they feel that they can make it a condition of review of this existing application of
tonight, that opportunity is yours.
MR. MAC EWAN-Wouldn’t it be his position down the road, if we want this route we just did the
three acre subdivision, you want to change it, forget the clustering, isn’t it his vision down the road to
do a cluster anyway?
MR. STEVES-Yes, but we are at the point where he has a purchaser. At this point you go get a
building permit. The building permit’s got to be issued on 45 acres, or whatever it may be, and at
least now if you go down to one lot at three acres, and get a building permit, and you can get a
construction loan on three acres, and then you’ll have options left to be able to develop the rest of
the property, and he can still build that one house. He can build that one house tomorrow without
any approval here. It just makes it a little bit more cumbersome, as far as getting back into a
subdivision at a later time. We’re looking to be able to build one house that he can build right now.
So like I say, I don’t have any objection to saying that that is one lot and take away the lot line and
merge the two lots.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-Matt, can I ask a question on taking away the lot line on the drawing? You’ve got
one lot line, that’s 230.37 feet long, and then we have one with a radius of 185, and a length of 133.
Are those the two that come out, that would come out?
MR. STEVES-The lot line between, that is south, 54 degrees 43 minutes and 11 seconds east, 230.37
feet.
MR. VOLLARO-That’s the only one that would come out, but there’s another one that has to come
out, and that’s that length of 133 feet, it seems to me, in order to make that one continuous parcel.
See where it says L, where the radius is 185?
MR. STEVES-Why would that have to come out?
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that would give you one complete lot.
MR. STEVES-The Town road right now is right here. That’s a dedicated Town road. So this whole
lot would have 185 feet of frontage, 107 feet of frontage on a Town road. It would be one lot at the
end of that Town road.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It would be one heck of a lot.
MR. STROUGH-So the driveway to the proposed house would be?
34
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
MR. STEVES-Off the end of that Town road.
MR. STROUGH-Kind of going southwest you mean?
MR. STEVES-This is the dedicated Town road. These are temporary turnaround easements that
have been dedicated to the Town. So removing this line, this lot.
MR. STROUGH-Becomes one solid lot and you put the house maybe here.
MR. STEVES-You could still put the house there.
MR. VOLLARO-What I’m trying to do is get the outline of this in that.
MR. STEVES-It would be here, along this road, to the existing Town road, back down and around,
and all the way back around.
MR. VOLLARO-What’s this line accomplishing?
MR. STEVES-That line now, this is the end of the dedicated Town road, gives this lot the required
40 foot Town road frontage, this lot the required road frontage, but if it’s merged into one lot, it
doesn’t make any difference.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But you only could build one house on it if it’s merged into one lot.
MR. STEVES-That’s all we need at this.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-But he’s got to charge double for a lot, land now.
MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s not our problem.
MR. MAC EWAN-My thoughts are, really, I mean, take no action and just go get your one building
permit, and when he decides what he wants to do and wants to put the funding in it, to develop his
subdivision in its entirety, with the concept plan, come and see us. That’s my opinion.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m kind of sympathetic to Cathy’s point of view, in that I don’t have a
problem with them developing some of it. It’s just that the concept that was presented with this is
probably the wrong way to come at it, given the limitations that the developer might have, but
making that a three acre lot, I mean, I don’t even know why they would even need an approval.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s why I’m suggesting that you just go ahead and get a building permit and
build the one house. That way you’ll get your funding going.
MR. STEVES-But I can’t sell a three acre lot without approval from this Board to have a lot to sell.
MR. MAC EWAN-You said you could go get a building permit and get a building permit tomorrow.
MR. STEVES-Yes, I can. Now I build your house and it’s done and you want to move in, what do I
sell you, the 50 acres or the three acres?
MS. RADNER-You have to subdivide, in any case, you have to subdivide the three acres.
MR. STROUGH-But Mr. Steves then you’re just saying that the property outline would be exactly as
depicted on here.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. STROUGH-Only this would dissolve between the two lots, making a three acre lot.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, what do you want to do?
MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I don’t have a problem with the three acre subdivision, but I’d still want
the condition that you had mentioned earlier about coming in with the full plan within, you know,
before the Certificate of Occupancy is provided. Certainly we can’t say building permit now, but.
MR. STEVES-I understand the Board’s, that comment that was made when we were looking at two
lots, what this does is gives him a vehicle to be able to have a purchaser, build the house, sell the lot,
35
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
acquire the money and develop the rest of the plan. If he can’t get a Certificate of Occupancy, he
can’t sell the lot to have the money to be able to develop the plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-All those reasons you just gave us are not in the Subdivision Reg’s.
MR. STEVES-I understand. I’m just stating the facts of the matter for my client.
MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I like to use a little common sense here. If he can go and build the
house anyway without our approval, you know, I’m willing to say, you know, okay, I’ll do the three
acre, you know, two lot subdivision to accommodate his need.
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. HUNSINGER-But there has to be some lever on the back side to see the whole site plan.
MR. STEVES-Absolutely, and I don’t disagree with that, I would agree to that. If he knows he’s got
a contract, I could probably persuade him to allow me to develop a plan before he does get CO.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. VOLLARO-If this turns out to be a one lot subdivision, that’s what we’re talking about. He’s
combining that into a single lot.
MR. STEVES-It’s actually a two lot subdivision. That lot, and everything else that’s left.
MR. MAC EWAN-This lot and that lot.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Everything else that’s left.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
MR. RINGER-Two lot subdivision.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We seem to have a consensus up here. Any other questions for them?
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. So then you can build a house on half of that, and then turn around and
then just make a boundary line there and make it two lots down the line.
MR. STEVES-We’ll make a plan for the entire rest of the property, correct.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So when you build the house, you’ll build one of them right where it’s located
here. You won’t put it in the center?
MR. STEVES-No.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you want to add?
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this
application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MELODY PERRY
MRS. PERRY-Good evening, I’m Melody Perry. My husband and I, this is my husband Norman, we
live at 806 West Mountain Road, and at this point, because of the developing that’s been done on
that hill, at the Vistas, we’ve had silt and sand every spring in our front yard that’s inches deep.
Nobody’s taken care of it. We’ve contacted.
NORMAN PERRY
MR. PERRY-David Hatin from Building and Codes.
MRS. PERRY-Right. Brian Humphrey from DPW, and we’ve also had Hal Raven come in several
times, and everybody keeps pointing fingers at everybody else.
36
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
MR. PERRY-Nobody’s willing to accept responsibility for the clean up.
MR. MAC EWAN-Where is the silting actually coming from?
MRS. PERRY-From the Vistas, down the natural runoff.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean from the property itself, from the individual buildings lots? Or is it
coming like from the right of way in the road?
MRS. PERRY-Well, it’s coming from the building site, up on the hill. It’s a natural runoff that’s
always been there. The water is not the problem. It’s the silt and the sand and all the other debris
that comes down and the runoff with it.
MR. RINGER-It comes down Miranda Lane onto West Mountain Road and into your property?
MR. PERRY-No, sir. It’s natural runoff that comes underneath the highway onto our land.
MR. MAC EWAN-You’re on what would be the east side of West Mountain Road?
MR. PERRY-That’s correct.
MRS. PERRY-It goes through Mrs. McEchron’s house who lives across the road from us.
MR. PERRY-It’s three or four inches every year, and it goes, actually, it runs through the front yard,
underneath another culvert, into our neighbor’s yard.
MR. MAC EWAN-So you’ve contacted not only the County DPW, but the Town DPW and the
Town Building and Codes?
MRS. PERRY-Yes.
MR. PERRY-And everybody’s shifting responsibility. Nobody wants to accept responsibility for it. I
mean, that’s our biggest grief for that. I mean, when we bought the house, one of the conditions of
us buying the house, we’ve lived there for three years. One of the conditions is, the homeowner told
us they had a problem with it, that one year, and I told him, we’ll buy the house, but we want this
remedied, and he said it was. Well I personally (lost words) the runoff, and it had been remedied.
He put up silt stops, but they’re full. Mr. Vollaro, you’re right, these things do have to be
maintained. They’re all full, and they’re not effective, and I spoke with Hal Raven and tried to work
this out with him, so we didn’t have to do this, because I’m part of the development trade myself,
and I don’t have a problem with that, but I want him to accept responsibility for what he’s created,
before he goes any further.
MRS. PERRY-It’s ruining our yard.
MR. PERRY-Yes. We get crabgrass. I mean, it was a beautiful lawn. The homeowner, previous
owner, had spent a lot of money, had people manicuring it. Well, I don’t have that luxury, but it’s
turned it into a Mississippi Delta that we have to clean up every year.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I appreciate your comments.
MR. RINGER-I’m still struggling with where you’re located.
MRS. PERRY-We’re on the corner of.
MR. PERRY-West Mountain Road is here. This is the road here. We live right, if West Mountain
Road comes here, we live right here.
MR. RINGER-You’re on which side of West Mountain Road?
MR. PERRY-Directly east of the proposed lots, just slightly south, maybe 100 yards south.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Are you near Stewart Road?
MRS. PERRY-No. Actually our neighbors that live next door to us, Stewart Road is right next to
them. We’re on the corner of Pinewood Hollow Road and West Mountain Road. We’re right there
on that corner.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I know where you are.
37
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
MRS. PERRY-The culvert that goes under the road is directly in front of our yard. So the sand, this
waterway goes through part of our yard, under another culvert which was put in under our driveway.
It does to our side lawn and then disperses off with the silt and the sand into our neighbor’s yard.
MR. PERRY-It’s a 24 inch culvert that we have in our yard. It was Bill Trombley’s old home. I
don’t know if any of you people, he was a builder in the area, but there’s a 24 inch culvert in our
home, and you couldn’t even see underneath it last year. The Town came up with a big backhoe and
dug up our yard to clean that out, steam cleaned it because it was so full the water would not run
underneath it. During the runoff, it would come over the highway and freeze during the wintertime.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-So the Town has at least tried to clean it up for you, but they haven’t rectified
the problem.
MR. PERRY-Right. All they’ve tried to do is clean out the culvert so the water would flow through.
They haven’t tried to help us. They just tried to keep the highway dry, I think.
MRS. PERRY-Because it freezes over. It gets so full that in the winter this water freezes under the
road and it’s like.
MR. PERRY-I believe, actually, there was a letter faxed to the office, too.
MRS. PERRY-From Mr. Howard.
MR. PERRY-From Mr. Howard.
MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll make sure that’s read into the record. Okay. Thank you.
MR. PERRY-Thank you for your time.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else?
DON STOCKMAN
MR. STOCKMAN-My name is Don Stockman. I live on West Mountain Road. I’m 65 years old. I
was born and raised right there, and I’ve lived within a half a mile of this all my life. I’m 65 now and
I have worked for Mrs. McEchron since I was 12 years old. That is the property due east of this
here. All those years that I worked for this lady, never was there a problem with any of the sand or
any of this problem until this development. When this development happened, every year sand
comes down, because it’s been diverted, the water, and carries the sand. It fills that little brook that’s
always been in Mrs. McEchron’s family for almost 200 years. It’s always been McEchron property,
never given any trouble and now every year there’s this problem with all this sand coming down, and
it fills their brook. The brook runs over. The whole yard is full of water. It nearly got in her house a
few years ago. Every year I go down there and I straighten this mess out for her, to help to get this
water to run in this channel, which, in turn, gives these people all the trouble, trying to go under the
road, which the culvert is always plugged, and then it runs over the road, and this seems to be an
ongoing thing that is never corrected. I agree with these people 100%, because I have seen it. So it
happens, and as probably you know, the water has come down and gone in back of the Sawn
property, which is on the very edge of the road that goes up the mountain, saturated the lawn so
badly that it pushed their entire back wall of their house in, just two or three years ago, because of
the water coming down because it is not properly taken care of.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. STOCKMAN-So it pushed their wall in. That means they had to put a whole new wall in in
back of their house, the entire back yard of Mrs. McEchron’s property is constantly water coming
right down to it, and her house is surrounded, in the spring, with this water, and I have worked there
since I was 12 years old, and I’ve seen everything.
MR. VOLLARO-Do they clean the sand off West Mountain Road? Because when we went up on
site visits, I don’t remember seeing an awful lot of sand out on the road, but does the Highway
Department clean it up?
MR. STOCKMAN-That’s the Warren County Highway Department. Warren County takes care of
that road.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
38
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Did you happen to have any silting problems after this last rain we had here the
other night?
MR. STOCKMAN-Not that I heard of.
MR. MAC EWAN-Primarily spring runoff where you have the biggest problem?
MR. STOCKMAN-It’s Spring runoff that brings this water.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. Thank you.
MR. STOCKMAN-So that is the problem every spring. I have another question. This was originally
to be three acre lots. Now we’re trying to get it down to about an acre and a half. We’re trying to get
double the lots, as was originally intended. This last lot that was listed here, the third one which I
guess we’re not dealing with really, that was going to be put on a lot of what, maybe 30 acres, 20 or
30 acres or something. How is that one lot going to be deeded? Was that homeowner going to get a
deed for 20 or 30 acres or was he going to get a, what size lot was he going to get, according to this?
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very much. We’ll get some answers for you.
MR. STOCKMAN-I’ve seen it first hand, since I was 12 years old.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
MR. PERRY-One other comment I want to make. Norman Perry, 806 West Mountain Road. One
other comment is this natural runoff goes through our yard, behind the Howard’s residence, runs
down the stream and actually I believe it leads into Halfway Brook, and if I’m not mistaken, I think
that runs into the Glens Falls drinking water, which is another concern.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. RINGER-Question for you before leave. The storm pipe that’s there, that 24 inch pipe, that’s
maintained by the Town?
MR. PERRY-I’ve lived there for three years, sir, and it has been maintained one time since I’ve been
there.
MR. RINGER-I have two in front of my house, and every fall the Town comes with this huge
vacuum cleaner.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a County road, though.
MR. RINGER-Yes, but the storm pipe comes down on a Town road, and underneath West
Mountain Road, I presume, it’s coming underneath West Mountain Road.
MR. PERRY-Correct.
MR. RINGER-If it starts up on Miranda Lane some place, it has to be a Town stormwater.
MR. MAC EWAN-The Town would take care of whatever issues dealing with drainage on the Town
road, but once it hits the right of way for the County, it becomes the County responsibility.
MR. RINGER-But it’s underground, it goes under West Mountain Road, he said.
MR. MAC EWAN-That’s probably why they’re not getting any cooperation because no one’s taking
responsibility for it.
MR. RINGER-Yes. Okay. I just, I wanted to be sure where that was, and I want to thank you for
that.
MR. VOLLARO-Where are the silt fences at? I’m looking, they must be directly behind these two
proposed lots.
MR. PERRY-I can tell you approximately where. I want to say they’re down in through here.
MR. VOLLARO-Okay.
MR. PERRY-I would say there was at least four of them. I don’t remember exactly, but I would say
there was at least four of them, and they were all full and running over and they’re not effective.
39
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. I think for the time being I’ll leave the public hearing open. Does
anyone else want to comment?
MRS. MOORE-I do have letters.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Go ahead and read them.
MRS. MOORE-I’ll start with Mr. Russell Howard. It’s dated September 25, 2001, it’s signed Russ
and Judy Howard. “In respect to the application for Subdivision No. 10-2001 – The Vistas – I
would not be in favor of said proposal from Mr. Raven. The main issue here is the runoff and
drainage problems of Phase #1 of “The Vistas”. Every spring since the original project, my
neighbors and myself have had to deal with the constant sand, dirt, debris accumulation on our lawns
from the mountainside. Hence, every spring when Mr. Raven is asked to clean up the mess, it’s
always a problem. If this problem was corrected first, maybe he wouldn’t have to rake up sand and
seed our now dead lawns. Storm drains are higher than road grades. How well do they work. I
would strongly urge attention to the erosion from Phase #1 before allowing any more excavation.
Thank you. Sincerely, Russ and Judy Howard” And then I was provided with a letter from Mr.
Nace. This is in regards to the Raven/Vista subdivision, and it’s addressed to Craig Brown, and it
has today’s date on it. “Dear Mr. Brown: Last week I met with Hal Raven at The Vistas subdivision
and examined the intermittent drainage path that runs down through the subdivision. It is my
understanding that water runs in this watercourse only during spring runoff and during unusually
heavy rainfalls. I also understand that sediment has been deposited at the foot of the watercourse
along West Mountain Road at least twice during the past few years. Based upon my examination, it
appears that the original source of this sediment came from erosion occurring during the
development of one of the building lots at the top of the subdivision. That building lot has now
been completed and the soil on the lot stabilized. However, it appears that some sediment which
had deposited itself in the watercourse is now being picked up and carried along by subsequent
rainfalls. The amount of sediment still in the watercourse and available for future transport to the
foot of the hill is relatively small. I did not observe any open areas with significant potential for
future erosion. Based upon my inspection, I believe that some relatively simple sediment control
measures can significantly reduce the potential for sediment being transported and deposited on
properties below this subdivision. I would recommend that a small (10 foot diameter by 4 foot deep)
sediment basin be installed just above the culvert crossing the subdivision road. This basin should be
lined with filter fabric and filled with large cobblestones. The basin can be located in the bottom of
the watercourse, just above the road right-of-way. A second basin should be constructed at the foot
of the watercourse just into the subdivision property. Since the nature ground is flatter here the
basin can be slightly larger and shallower and constructed more like a rock filled check dam. If you
have any questions regarding this matter, I will be happy to meet with you at the site to review my
recommendation. Sincerely, Thomas W. Nace, P.E.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Who is that letter from?
MRS. MOORE-This is from Tom Nace. If I’m correct, I can’t locate the letter, there is a letter from
Craig Brown. I believe it’s probably dated over a year ago, and it’s addressed to Hal Raven in regard
to the erosion problem, and I can’t locate it. So I can’t read it into the record.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Considering the history of this original subdivision going all the way back
to 1980, do you know if in the files there’s an original stormwater management plan? I’d probably
guess there isn’t one.
MRS. MOORE-I can look while you’re discussing.
MR. MAC EWAN-I didn’t think there would be. I took a shot in the dark.
MR. RINGER-The approval says that all they’re going, if you want to read the approval.
MR. MAC EWAN-I read the approval, all five lines of it.
MR. RINGER-All five lines of it, right, that’s all it is.
MR. MAC EWAN-It seems to be we have an issue with stormwater runoff.
MR. STEVES-Yes. I received this letter from Tom Nace of Nace Engineering, P.C. also this
evening. In response to Craig Brown’s letter, I was able to talk to Mr. Raven, just before the
meeting, and he will go along with the recommendations of Mr. Nace’s letter and would implement
those before any building permits would be issued to try to alleviate any problem.
40
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Why has it taken this long to come up with some sort of resolution, do you
suppose?
MR. STEVES-I wish I knew. I do not know. I just received the letter from Mr. Nace tonight.
MR. STROUGH-Miranda Lane is now a Town owned road. Right?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct, and the culvert that they refer to, I’m not denying at all what happens
there, but I believe that culvert was in place before this subdivision went in, if I’m not mistaken, and
I know that that is, I think some Board members are asking, that is a County maintained road, and
that culvert is maintained by the County. Whether or not they do it that often, I do not know.
MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if we can eliminate the problem in the subdivision, you don’t have to worry
about the County or the Town having to come in.
MR. STEVES-Right.
MR. STROUGH-But I, too, noticed that the catch basin drain covers were above the macadam
surface.
MR. STEVES-It’s a base coat that’s on there. He has to put the topcoat on, then they would be
flushed with.
MR. STROUGH-Well, if it’s a Town road, I guess that’s not his responsibility.
MR. STEVES-There probably is a bond in there for it or something along those lines, but there is a
topcoat that’s going to be placed.
MR. STROUGH-Well, that seems like it would solve some of the runoff problem.
MR. STEVES-Yes, and it is going to be topcoated. I know that. So the topcoating would then bring
up to, like you say, a little depression here.
MR. STROUGH-Because right now the water just goes around them and it’s not working.
MR. STEVES-And then what Tom Nace had suggested, he would be willing to implement that
immediately.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess I’m going to speak up here, my position is incorporate this letter into that
plan. I’d rather table this thing, for you to incorporate that into the plan, and give us an opportunity,
I think, to take a look at it when we go out and do site visits next month.
MR. STEVES-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, that’s my position. I don’t know how everybody else feels about it.
MR. STROUGH-Well, I agree. This has gotten to the point of getting pretty messy.
MR. MAC EWAN-It’s piecemeal, and I don’t want to piecemeal.
MR. STROUGH-Yes, and that’s what I suggested, and like you say, we need to look at the erosion,
the stormwater management that’s going on there or not going on there, and put a new package
together, okay, because I was trying to say, you know, I was looking to put together a resolution,
trying to word one that would work, given what we’ve been given, and I was having a tough time
with that, the wording of it. So I’d be in favor of tabling this as well.
MR. MAC EWAN-I think that’s pretty much the consensus up and down the Board. I mean, you
know, I’m looking back to these minutes of approval going back to January 1980, and there’s really
nothing definitive in there, what was approved, what’s included in the packet. So it makes it difficult
for us to understand what was granted way back then.
MR. STEVES-I don’t disagree. The original subdivision was approved, and the filing for when Mr.
Raven purchased it was nothing more than upgrading the road to today’s standards. The subdivision
was approved and filed long before he purchased it. So I don’t know what was approved back then.
I believe it was a name by Berkley that developed the plan back in the late 70’s.
MR. MAC EWAN-I guess a question for you, Laura, I mean, would you consider this letter from
Nace Engineering of the 25 acceptable enough to be considered a stormwater management plan for
th
this subdivision?
41
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
MRS. MOORE-I would have to discuss that with Craig Brown, the Zoning Administrator. I don’t
believe Craig’s seen this letter yet.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. See, on that note alone, it’s worth tabling it, I guess.
MR. STEVES-Are you tabling it to the second meeting of next month?
MR. MAC EWAN-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. MAC EWAN-We had the public hearing. We left it open. What do you want to add?
MRS. MOORE-Just a comment in regards to deadline, if you’re going to extend some time for him
to submit additional information to you, and you may want, before you provide your resolution, to
come up with the tabling issues prior to your making your resolution.
MR. MAC EWAN-Deadline is what, Friday?
MRS. MOORE-No, the deadline is tomorrow.
MR. MAC EWAN-Tomorrow.
MR. STEVES-What other additional information? As far as revising the plan to show the one lot,
and as far as Tom Nace addressing his letter in a meeting with Craig Brown, and discussing the
stormwater of that road and implementing the plan.
MR. MAC EWAN-The remedies that Mr. Nace is suggesting in this letter need to be incorporated
into that plan, but by the same token, that plan’s got to be reviewed by C.T. Male, as far as I’m
concerned. I mean, this is a stormwater issue, and it’s typical that they review these engineering
comments, and I don’t want to bypass that. So I guess the issue is, can you turn all that around by
the fifth of October so it can be ready to be distributed? Is that doable?
MRS. MOORE-You would like this sent to C.T. Male and have them review?
MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely. They may have a different perspective on this.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. RINGER-I think you’re right. With all the concerns, C.T. Male ought to definitely look at it.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to take a stab at a motion to table?
MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2001
HAL RAVEN (THE VISTAS), Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Vollaro:
Until the October 23, 2001 meeting. The reason why we’re tabling it is because we would like to get
a further review of the stormwater and erosion control runoff, and give the applicant time to
resubmit his development plan, which we understand will be one lot of 3 +/- acres, and a second lot
of 27 +/- acres, in the approximate location of current lots identified on S-1 as Lots 10 and 9.
Duly adopted this 25th day of September, 2001, by the following vote:
MR. MAC EWAN-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Clarification of whether, the applicant has requested a waiver, or requested cluster.
You may want to make a statement in this resolution that says that you do not wish to see a cluster
subdivision, just to reference. You don’t have to add that.
MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think we really need to do that. We’ve gotten to the point where we
know we’re doing a three acre lot here.
MRS. MOORE-That’s fine, and just a correction. It’s not a one lot. It’s a two lot. It’s the one lot of
three acres, plus or minus, and the second lot of twenty-seven plus or minus acres.
MR. STROUGH-Okay. Correction so noted.
42
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
MR. MAC EWAN-Keep a note, I left the public hearing open.
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
MS. RADNER-Craig, can I just comment? You may want to remind the applicant that since you’ve
already been told that there’s going to be more to come, when you’re reviewing this for SEQRA,
you’re going to have to consider that build out because of the issues that John raised. He might need
to be prepared to address those issues.
MR. MAC EWAN-So noted.
MR. STEVES-So noted.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
SUBDIVISION NO. 7-85 MODIFICATION CIFONE CONSTRUCTION (BURNT
RIDGE) PROPERTY OWNER: G. BERES AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE:
SR-1A LOCATION: SMOKE RIDGE, OFF OF SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT
PROPOSES A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN PARCEL 121-10-17 AND
121-10-999 OF THE BURNT RIDGE SUBDIVISION . PARCEL 121-10-17 WILL
INCREASE BY 0.21 ACRES AND PARCEL 121-10-999 WILL BE REDUCED BY 0.21
ACRES. LOT SIZE: 11.33 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there’s no public hearing needed.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 7-85 Modification, Meeting Date: September 25, 2001 “Project
Description
The applicant proposes to modify a Planning Board approved subdivision. The boundary line
adjustment will increase Lot # 17 to 31,074 square feet. The purpose of the adjustment is to
straighten out the lot.
The boundary line adjustment does not change any other feature of the original subdivision.”
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Hi, again.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Again, I am Matt Steves with VanDusen and Steves, and I represent
Cifone Construction in this application. It’s pretty simple. There’s a Lot 17 in the existing Smoke
Ridge subdivision, and we’re just going to (lost word) that lot off, making it a little bit more desirable
lot. The rest of the property is being conveyed, and that was a portion of a deal that was made by
the owner of that lot that would like to have that lot extended out and made a little bit more
concentric or in line with radius with the curve of the road. It’s taking a small portion off of about a
six acre lot and adding it to an existing 25,000 square foot lot.
MR. VOLLARO-It’s pretty straightforward.
MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy, we’ll start with you.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Come back to me, please. I’m still looking for something here.
MR. MAC EWAN-Bob?
MR. VOLLARO-It’s straightforward. Nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-Larry?
43
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
MR. RINGER-Nothing. If your other one was this simple, Matt, you would have had it easy. I have
nothing.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
MR. STROUGH-Just that I drove through there on my way to the meeting tonight, because I hadn’t
visited the site, and I see it’s a mix of single family and multifamily uses in this area. I do have a
question. I don’t know if it’s really applicable to this, and the Chairman will straighten me out, I’m
sure, but who maintains those multifamily residences? I mean, is there a management of those?
MR. STEVES-They’re owned by different entities.
MR. STROUGH-Well, whatever that is, it doesn’t work well. I mean, the single family homes are
nice, but the multifamily homes are certainly not going to win the Queensbury Beautification award,
but it has nothing to do with this. No comments beyond that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I snuck
that in.
MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have anything.
MR. MAC EWAN-Back to you.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m okay. Fine.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you want to add?
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-No public hearing is scheduled. Do I hear a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 7-85 CIFONE
CONSTRUCTION (BURNT RIDGE), Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Vollaro:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of SB 7-85, Cifone Construction. Applicant
proposes a boundary line adjustment between parcel 121-10-17 and 121-10-999 of the Burnt Ridge
Subdivision. Parcel 121-10-17 will increase by 0.21 acres and parcel 121-10-999 will be reduced by
0.21 acres. Tax Map No 121.-10-999, 121-10-17. Lot size: 11.33 acres. Section: Subdivision
Regulations
WHEREAS, the application was received 8/01;
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly
received information, not included is this listing as of 9/21/01;
9/25 Staff Notes
9/5 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, public hearing was not held concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application is approved as per the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the
following conditions:
44
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
1. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent
to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days.
2. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning
Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted.
Duly adopted this 25th day of September 2001 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2001 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE:
UNLISTED CIFONE CONSTRUCTION (BURNT RIDGE) PROPERTY OWNER: G.
BERES AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: SMOKE
RIDGE, OFF OF SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF
AN 11.33 ACRE PARCEL INTO 7 LOTS FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION.
PROPOSED LOT SIZES ARE ONE ACRE AND GREATER . CROSS REFERENCE: SB
7-85, AV 74-2001 TAX MAP NO. 121-10-999, 121-10-17 LOT SIZE: 11.33 ACRES
SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 11-2001 Preliminary Stage Final Stage, Cifone Construction
(Burnt Ridge), Meeting Date: September 25, 2001 “Project Description
The applicant will be amending the application to reduce the number of lots proposed. The
applicant withdrew the Zoning Board application as a result of discussion during the meeting.
The original application was for a seven-lot subdivision to finish development of the Burnt Ridge
subdivision.
Study of plat (§ A183)
??
Lot arrangement: The lots are similar to the existing lots in the subdivision.
??
Location and design of streets: The applicant does not need to construct new roads:
??
Topography: contours are noted on the plat.
??
Water supply: municipal connection is proposed
??
Sewage disposal: The plans show on site septic systems.
??
Drainage: A stormwater management plan was not provided with the application
??
Lot sizes: The lot size meets the minimum requirement of one acre. The applicant is requesting relief
from the average lot width.
??
Future development: Lot # 7 has the potential for further development at 5.78 acres.
??
Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance: This project is located in Neighborhood 12 of the 1998
Comprehensive Plan. The Comp plan suggests rezoning of this area to be consistent with the existing lot
sizes.
??
State Environmental Quality Review Act: A short environmental assessment form has been
completed
Areas of Concern or Importance
The applicant has indicated that the lot labeled as “Other lands of Cobe” has been combined with an
adjoining parcel – 93-2-20.1.
Suggestions
A revised drawing should be submitted that indicates the remaining lands are not part of the
subdivision. This may occur for final signature.”
MRS. MOORE-My understanding is Lots 24 and 23 will be combined, and then in regards to “Other
Lands of Cobe” which is designated as 5.78 acres, they have been, I would like to say they have been
combined with the adjoining lot. I’m not certain of that, and maybe Matt Steves can correct me.
45
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
MR. STEVES-Again, my name is Matt Steves, just in case you forgot over the last three hours. This
is an actually six lot subdivision now, five new lots along the existing road in Burnt Ridge/Smoke
Ridge, and then the existing lot that is basically landlocked on the other side of the Niagara Mohawk
ownership that is under contract to be merged with properties of Larry Clute, or Clute Enterprises,
DKC Holdings, on this property that’s on the south side of the Niagara Mohawk power line, which
really doesn’t serve any purpose to my client than this application. We went to the Zoning Board, a
quick history on it, for six lots, all of an acre, but the two westerly lots were from the 150 foot
requirement now of the SR-1 Acre zone. When this was originally approved and developed, it was
an SR-20,000 square foot zone. So therefore the minimum lot width went up to 150 feet, and one
acre. We had one acre on all six lots, but the two westerly lots lacked I think it was about 10 feet,
and about 17 feet, averaging 150 feet, and the Zoning Board did not want to entertain that. So we
therefore withdrew the application, and then this map that’s in front of you now, I reconfigured the
lots to be five lots, all of an acre in size, and all of a 150 foot average or more. So it’s a straight SR-1
Acre subdivision. The six lots would become, there’s five along the road and the sixth lot is the lot
on the other side of the power lines.
MS. RADNER-When’s that set to close? You say it’s under contract.
MR. STEVES-That I would let Mr. O’Connor speak for. When is the closing set for the conveyance
to DKC Holdings?
MICHAEL O’CONNOR
MR. O'CONNOR-Subject to approval by this Board of the subdivision that we propose here.
MS. RADNER-So if this Board made it a condition of its approval, if they were to give any approval,
that that transaction had to go through, that would be acceptable to the applicant?
MR. O'CONNOR-Just because it’s late, I’ll tell you yes. My nature would tell you no. What
difference does it make?
MS. RADNER-The difference is they can’t approve a subdivision with a landlocked piece.
MR. O'CONNOR-It already is landlocked. You’re not creating it. It’s landlocked.
MS. RADNER-You’re creating it as landlocked by cutting off those other.
MR. O'CONNOR-No. We do not own anything connected to that. Niagara Mohawk has key
ownership.
MR. STEVES-That’s a landlocked parcel.
MR. O'CONNOR-That’s already a landlocked parcel.
MR. STEVES-It might be a tax parcel that land hooked across to Niagara Mohawk, but you do not
have an ownership that attaches that parcel to any other parcel owned by the applicant. It is a
landlocked piece.
MR. O'CONNOR-The land hook is just for tax purposes only.
MR. STEVES-I could show you land hooked lands across County and State highways. I could show
you land hooked lands across the Northway. That does not mean they’re not landlocked.
MR. O'CONNOR-I have no problem agreeing, but you’re not, we’re not creating something.
MR. STEVES-It’s already there.
MR. MAC EWAN-Satisfied?
MS. RADNER-I can tell that Laura’s not, but since they’ve agreed, I don’t think that the bottom line
matters as long as they’re agreeable.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Larry, I’ll start with you.
MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-John?
46
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
MR. STROUGH-No, that was my concern. If the applicant agrees to that, so that, it’s fine with me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Chris?
MR. HUNSINGER-I’m just trying to look at the revised map compared to the one that was
provided to us, and it looks like it is a little bit different than just combining 23 and 24.
MR. STEVES-What I did is, on this application, instead of just combining the two and making that
exceptionally large, I said it would be much better to try and equalize the lots across there. So that’s
exactly what I did. Going across, real quick, the most easterly lot is 1.15 acres, 1.13 acres, 1.08 acres,
and then because the road starts to swing away from the back property, these stay consistent in
width, but go up to 1.24 and 1.59, but if I combine the two lots, all these other three would have
been exactly an acre, and that would have been.
MR. HUNSINGER-That would have been two, yes.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think it looks a lot better.
MR. STEVES-So I basically did merge two lots, but I kind of adjusted the lot lines to make it a more
conforming subdivision.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, great.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-Nice job.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Robert?
MR. VOLLARO-I only have one problem, that the drawing I’m looking at is not that drawing. How
come we have a different drawing that you do, Matt? I’ve got a basic problem with that.
MR. STEVES-Okay. I will step back real quick. I have made application to this Board, and to the
Zoning Board, understanding and believing that we would go to Zoning Board and get the variance
for the two substandard lot widths. We were looking for a lot width of 137 feet instead of 150. We
thought in an SR-1 acre zone when the lot met the one acre, or just a little shy in the lot width, that
the Zoning Board wouldn’t have a problem with it, but they did. So we withdrew the application,
and we had to make a new map and I only had a couple of days to do it.
MR. VOLLARO-So we didn’t get a copy.
MR. STEVES-So therefore you didn’t get a copy.
MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a copy, an updated copy?
MR. STEVES-I’ll give Staff this copy right now.
MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else from Board members? I’ll open up the public hearing. Any
comments?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please.
MR. VOLLARO-The stormwater management plan was not provided with the application. Do we
expect one with this subdivision?
MR. STEVES-This was part of an existing subdivision. It was lands remaining. The stormwater
plan came into play with the development of that road, is implemented with the development of the
road. We’re just breaking lots off the road that is currently there.
MR. VOLLARO-So you’re saying there’s a stormwater management plan associated with this
already?
MR. STEVES-I believe it incorporated the entire property and the lands that abutted that road. Yes,
and then all we’re doing now is creating lots off that road. No new road is proposed.
47
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
MR. MAC EWAN-Satisfied?
MR. VOLLARO-Sure. It sounds good to me.
MR. MAC EWAN-Stormwater management plan doesn’t necessarily mean just dealing with runoff
on the roads, and the infrastructure. It’s also relative to the lots themselves.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-Was the stormwater management plan?
MR. STEVES-I cannot address that. I did not do that. I believe that was Mr. Dickinson that did
that plan, or reviewed the plan and it was shown as the entire road and the stormwater management
plan was for, used the road as the canal.
MR. MAC EWAN-Procedurally, Laura, what did Staff do regarding this application for stormwater
management?
MR. VOLLARO-They made a statement that they don’t have one.
MRS. MOORE-(Lost words) in ’86.
MS. RADNER-So that would pre-date our stormwater management law.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. It wasn’t required?
MS. RADNER-No. It wasn’t required then. It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not required now.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think there’s a history of any problems here with stormwater
management, either within the subdivision or as it connects to, is it Sherman Avenue? As it connects
to Sherman Avenue, and basically you’re talking about one side of the road. I presume the other side
had to be, if not both sides.
MR. VOLLARO-It would seem to me that Staff would have a copy of that stormwater management
plan that was applicable to this.
MR. MAC EWAN-It wasn’t required back then. That’s the problem.
MS. RADNER-Yes. It wasn’t required back then, but this one is considered a major project.
MR. MAC EWAN-Let me ask this. In the original concept of this subdivision, were those five or six
lots ever contemplated as future phasing or something like that?
MR. O'CONNOR-I truthfully don’t know, because I think the earlier subdivision map that I’ve seen
has shown this all as one parcel. Is that what your map shows, Laura? And I never understood why
they didn’t break it out, or they didn’t break it out.
MR. STEVES-Actually, I have a copy of a worksheet that was on file from I believe Dennis
Dickinson’s office, and it shows a plan for development of that piece, with actually a couple of cul de
sacs heading south across the Niagara Mohawk property. I don’t know when that was developed or
how. The subdivision that was filed and approved does not show any development proposals on
that approximately five acres or six acres.
MR. O'CONNOR-It does show the topographical features of that parcel. It shows the contours.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions or comments from Board members? All right. Let’s
do that SEQRA, please.
MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s the Short Form. “Could Action result in any adverse effects associated
with the following, C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats or
threatened or endangered species?”
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. STROUGH-I don’t know. Has that been assessed for Karner blue and pine bush and that kind
of stuff?
MR. MAC EWAN-That whole section of Town has been mapped. It’s been surveyed. Kathy
O’Brien has been actively involved in it as well as.
48
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
MR. STEVES-The area, I can speak real quick on that. The area that was determined to have habitat
was on the easterly portion of the DKC Holdings, which was east of here. She actually entered, and
she was with two of my employees when she did. We had her park up here and walk through this
property down the power line and look at the whole thing when we were there, and she did not find
any host species or habitat in this area. It was all on the easterly end of the DKC Holdings which is
east of this property.
MR. MAC EWAN-The answer is.
MR. VOLLARO-No.
MR. MAC EWAN-No.
MR. STROUGH-Fine.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 11-2001, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption,
seconded by John Strough:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
CIFONE CONSTRUCTION (BURNT RIDGE), SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2001, and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and
having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action
about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the
Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be
necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
Duly adopted this 25 day of September 2001 by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the date on that drawing?
MR. STEVES-The date on this drawing, Mr. Chairman, is April 9, 2001, revised September 24, 2001.
MR. MAC EWAN-The 24?
th
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. MAC EWAN-That was drawing S-1, right?
49
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2001 CIFONE
CONSTRUCTION (BURNT RIDGE), Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of SB 11-2001, Cifone Construction Applicant
proposes subdivision of an 11.33 acre parcel into 7 lots for residential construction. Proposed lot
sizes are one acre and greater. Cross Reference: SB 7-85, AV 74-2001. Tax Map No 121.-10-999,
121-10-17. Lot size: 11.33 acres. Section: Subdivision Regulations
WHEREAS, the application was received 8//01;
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly
received information, not included is this listing as of 9/21/01;
9/25 Staff Notes
9/18 Notice of Public Hearing:
9/5 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 9/25/01 concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered
and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application is approved for Preliminary Stage as per the resolution prepared by Staff
with the understanding that the lands noted as “Other Lands of Cobe, Inc.” are to be
combined with adjoining parcel, DKC Holdings property (93.-2-20.1 or 93.-2-16).
Duly adopted this 25th day of September 2001 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion for Final, please.
MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t know we were going to go so. This may occur for final…the revised
drawing should be submitted that indicates the remaining lands are not part of the subdivisions. This
may occur for final signature.
MR. MAC EWAN-Basically what it’s saying is that drawing, in order to get signed, has to be
submitted that way.
MR. VOLLARO-All right. Then I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2001 CIFONE
CONSTRUCTION (BURNT RIDGE), Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of SB 11-2001, Cifone Construction Applicant
proposes subdivision of an 11.33 acre parcel into 7 lots for residential construction. Proposed lot
50
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
sizes are one acre and greater. Cross Reference: SB 7-85, AV 74-2001. Tax Map No 121.-10-999,
121-10-17. Lot size: 11.33 acres. Section: Subdivision Regulations
WHEREAS, the application was received 8//01;
WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly
received information, not included is this listing as of 9/21/01;
9/25 Staff Notes
9/18 Notice of Public Hearing:
9/5 Meeting Notice
WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 9/25/01 concerning the above project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision
requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the
Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered
and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a
modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been
considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different
environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that
The application is approved for Final Stage and is subject to the following conditions:
1. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent
to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days.
2. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning
Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted.
Duly adopted this 25th day of September 2001 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Metivier
MR. MAC EWAN-Leave that drawing with Laura, please.
MR. O'CONNOR-And it’s our understanding that you conditioned your approval upon the hook up
of that back piece with the Clute parcel which we will do.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Also, we plan on being back here for site plan review for duplexes on those lots.
MR. MAC EWAN-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-And somebody made a comment, some of those duplexes across the street aren’t
the best in the world, but some of them are beyond control.
51
(Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/25/01)
MR. STROUGH-Well, see, that’s what I’m wondering, the system, whatever it is, are they
individually owned?
MR. O'CONNOR-They had somebody that went through a foreclosure, John.
MR. STROUGH-It’s all the duplexes have a lower than, well, my standard. Maybe that’s not fair.
MR. O'CONNOR-Part of that is tenant control. I mean, the people can.
MR. STROUGH-Well, who owns the building?
MR. O'CONNOR-Well, but people have rules and whatever, and tenants just ignore them.
MR. STROUGH-Well, the buck stops with the landowner.
MR. O'CONNOR-Try and go to Town court and get the court to tell you that. It doesn’t work that
way.
MR. MAC EWAN-A different topic for a different board for a different time.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but I’m just telling you that it will come back to you for duplexes. I think
part of the Staff comments were fair, that basically I think the revised zoning says that actually the
density for this area should be comparable to what it was. That was part of our problem with the
Zoning Board. It was 20,000 square foot lots before, and that’s the way the adjoining properties
have been developed, and now they’re talking about one acre per unit. So you’d have to have two
acre lots to have a duplex, which I don’t think we have a two acre lot duplex subdivision in any place
in the Town of Queensbury.
MR. RINGER-Just one. We approved one last month for Hayes, up on Ridge Road.
MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Okay, but the rest.
MR. RINGER-That might be the only one, Mike.
MR. O'CONNOR-I did it, and the rest of it’s wetland. Hayes’ owned some of these duplexes here
that you didn’t like.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Craig MacEwan, Chairman
52